Condorcet winner criterion: Difference between revisions
Added real election occurrence section
(Removed the symmetrical ICT stuff as it doesn't actually pass the FBC.) |
(Added real election occurrence section) |
||
Line 54:
[[Approval voting]], [[Range voting]], [[Borda count]], [[plurality voting]], and [[instant-runoff voting]] do not comply with the Condorcet Criterion. However, any voting method that collects enough information to detect pairwise preferences (i.e. scoring or ranking methods) can be "forced" to comply with the Condorcet criterion by automatically electing the Condorcet winner if one exists (or alternatively, eliminating all candidates not in the Smith Set) before doing anything else.
== Occurrences in real elections ==
Most real elections have a Condorcet winner. Andrew Myers, who operates the [[online poll|Condorcet Internet Voting Service]], found that 83% of the nonpolitical CIVS elections with at least 10 votes had a Condorcet winner, with the figure rising to 98.8% for elections with at least 300 votes.<ref name="CIVS">{{cite conference |url=https://www.cs.cornell.edu/andru/papers/civs24/ |title=The Frequency of Condorcet Winners in Real Non-Political Elections |last=Myers |first=A. C. |author-link=https://www.cs.cornell.edu/andru/ |date=March 2024 |conference=61st Public Choice Society Conference}}</ref>
A database of 189 ranked United States election from 2004 to 2022 found only one Condorcet cycle: the [[2021 Minneapolis Ward 2 city council election]].<ref name="GSM2023">{{cite arXiv | last=Graham-Squire | first=Adam | last2=McCune | first2=David | title=An Examination of Ranked Choice Voting in the United States, 2004-2022 |eprint=2301.12075v2 | date=2023-01-28 | class=econ.GN}}</ref> While this indicates a very high rate of Condorcet winners, it's possible that some of the effect is due to general [[two-party domination]].
==Commentary==
| |||