Condorcet winner criterion

From electowiki
Revision as of 00:20, 19 July 2008 by 98.223.173.27 (talk) (added comment on range voting non-compliance)

The Condorcet candidate or Condorcet winner of an election is the candidate who, when compared in turn with each of the other candidates, is preferred over the other candidate. On a one-dimensional political spectrum, the Condorcet winner will be at the position of the median voter. Mainly because of Condorcet's voting paradox, a Condorcet winner will not always exist in a given set of votes.

The Condorcet criterion for a voting system is that it chooses the Condorcet winner when one exists. Any method conforming to the Condorcet criterion is known as a Condorcet method.

Complying methods

Black, Condorcet//Approval, Smith/IRV, Copeland, Llull-Approval Voting, Minmax, Smith/Minmax, ranked pairs and variations (maximize affirmed majorities, maximum majority voting), and Schulze comply with the Condorcet criterion.

Approval voting, Range voting, Borda count, plurality voting, and instant-runoff voting do not.

Commentary

Non-ranking methods such as plurality and approval cannot comply with the Condorcet criterion because they do not allow each voter to fully specify their preferences. But instant-runoff voting allows each voter to rank the candidates, yet it still does not comply. A simple example will prove that IRV fails to comply with the Condorcet criterion.

Consider, for example, the following vote count of preferences with three candidates {A,B,C}:

499:A>B>C
498:C>B>A
3:B>C>A

In this case, B is preferred to A by 501 votes to 499, and B is preferred to C by 502 to 498, hence B is preferred to both A and C. So according to the Condorcet criteria, B should win. By contrast, according to the rules of IRV, B is ranked first by the fewest voters and is eliminated, and C wins with the transferred voted from B; in plurality voting A wins with the most first choices.

Range voting does not comply because it allows for the difference between 'rankings' to matter. E.g. 51 people might rate A at 100, and B at 90, while 49 people rate A at 0, and B at 100. Condorcet would consider this 51 people voting A>B, and 49 voting B>A, and A would win. Range voting would see this as A having support of 5100/100 = 51%, and B support of (51*90+49*100)/100 = 94.9%; range voting advocates would probably say that in this case the Condorcet winner is not the socially ideal winner.

This page uses Creative Commons Licensed content from Wikipedia (view authors).