Condorcet paradox: Difference between revisions
Added Norwegian parliamentary Condorcet cycle.
m (Added link to an election with a Condorcet cycle) |
(Added Norwegian parliamentary Condorcet cycle.) |
||
Line 38:
|}
If C is chosen as the winner, it can be argued that B should win instead, since two voters (1 and 2 i.e. the first and second) prefer B to C and only one voter (3) prefers C to B. However, by the same argument A is preferred to B, and C is preferred to A, by a margin of two to one on each occasion.
== Known Condorcet cycles ==
While rare, Condorcet cycles have been documented. They are more common in small elections or where the outcome is sufficiently close to a tie that they can be produced by noise. Some examples are:
* The [[2021 Minneapolis Ward 2 city council election]].
* The Norwegian parliamentary vote involving the [[w:Oslo Airport location controversy]].<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.stortinget.no/Global/pdf/Dokumentserien/2000-2001/dok18-200001.pdf|website=The Norwegian Parliament web site|title=Dokument nr. 18 (in Norwegian)|author=The parliamentary investigation committee for Gardermoen|quote=It's likely that the choice of voting order determined the outcome. In all likelihood there was a cyclical majority ('roterende flertall'). In such a case, the term 'the will of the majority' is meaningless, and one cannot assert that the actual outcome respects the will of the majority...}}</ref>
== Notes ==
Line 67 ⟶ 74:
* [[Gibbard-Satterthwaite theorem]]
* [[Smith set]]
== References ==
<references/>
{{fromwikipedia}}[[Category:Voting theory]]
| |||