This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site you agree to our use of cookies. To find out more, see our Privacy and Cookies policy.
Skip to the content

Share this

Free weekly newswire

Sign up to receive all our latest news direct to your inbox.

Physics on film

100 Second Science Your scientific questions answered simply by specialists in less than 100 seconds.

Watch now

Bright Recruits

At all stages of your career – whether you're an undergraduate, graduate, researcher or industry professional – brightrecruits.com can help find the job for you.

Find your perfect job

Physics connect

Are you looking for a supplier? Physics Connect lists thousands of scientific companies, businesses, non-profit organizations, institutions and experts worldwide.

Start your search today

Blog

The three-party voting paradox

By Margaret Harris

Last month, with space in the print edition of Physics World tight, I cut a couple of sentences from the end of a short review I’d written of Len Fisher’s new book, The Perfect Swarm. This turned out to be a bad idea. How bad? Well, you can read the published review here, but this is how it originally ended:

“UK readers may be particularly interested in [Fisher's] explanation of how, in a three-way race, voting is not transitive. This means that it would be theoretically possible for a majority to prefer the Tories to Labour, another majority to prefer Labour to the Lib Dems, and a third majority to prefer the Lib Dems to the Tories. Ouch.”

Ouch indeed. As keen observers of British politics will have noticed, the possibility of a tight three-way race got a lot less theoretical last week, after Lib Dem leader Nick Clegg’s performance in the first-ever televised debate between party leaders boosted the (usually third-place) Lib Dems’ poll ratings.

But although I’ve clearly blown my chance of being hailed as a political oracle, it’s not too late to take a closer look at the mathematics behind a three-way race – and particularly at the Condorcet paradox, the technical name of the situation I (almost) described.

Named after the Marquis de Condorcet (an 18th-century French nobleman who, Fisher writes, “had more fun with voting systems than most politicians”), the simplest Condorcet paradox occurs when there are three voters and three political parties A, B and C:

Voter 1 prefers A to B, but would rather have B than C
Voter 2 prefers B to C, but would rather have C than A
Voter 3 prefers C to A, but would rather have A than B

In these circumstances, no matter who is declared the winner, two-thirds of the electorate will have preferred someone else. There is no “Condorcet winner” – no party which, when compared to all others, is preferred by more people.

Of course, this is an extreme example. However, even in more realistic voting scenarios, there are very few voting systems that will always produce a Condorcet winner when one exists. The “first-past-the-post” system that currently operates in the UK (and that the Tories want to keep) is obviously not one of them; indeed, there have been plenty of recent election results where more people voted against the winning party than voted for it. But the “alternative vote” that Labour has suggested also fails the Condorcet test, as does the Single Transferable Vote system advocated by the Liberal Democrats (although there are more complex variants of STV that do comply).

Worse, the economist Kenneth Arrow proved in 1950 that the Condorcet paradox is just the start. Arrow showed that no voting systems simultaneously satisfy all of the “fairness criteria” that Arrow specified (you can read more about his criteria here, but two of them are transitivity and a rule against dictatorships). It’s an insight that won Arrow a Nobel Prize for Economics, and presumably sent voting-reform fans into a deep depression.

I couldn’t possibly tell you how to vote – we at physicsworld.com are officially neutral – but if you want to drive away an annoying political canvasser from your doorstep, I’d recommend asking them how their party would solve the Condorcet paradox.

This entry was posted in General. Bookmark the permalink.
View all posts by this author  | View this author's profile

7 comments

  1. Dr. Iain Salisbury

    1) There is no such thing as the Nobel Prize for Economics.
    2) In the British voting system, we select representatives, not delegates, and party affiliations are merely one consideration among many. “Proportional representation” is an oxymoron, since handing votes to party apparatchiks, who then go down a list of increasingly inadequate hacks and time-servers, produces delegates, who have no direct link to the electorate.
    I concur with the article, insofar as it describes the consequences of various establishment gerrymanderings.

  2. dan.hatton

    Iain, I think you really know that the closed list system you describe isn’t the only available form of proportional representation. The single transferable vote, or even an open list system, gives voters control at the individual-candidate level.
    Incidentally, did Arrow actually use the phrase “fairness criteria”? It strikes me that “independence of irrelevant alternatives”, while it’s a nice idea, has very little to do with fairness.

  3. dan.hatton

    Thanks Margaret. Nice work.

  4. Meredith Ashlock

    “Human beings can alter their lives by altering their attitudes of mind.” – William James

  5. She scorched the ramp at an underwear fashion show, thanks to
    the Brazil butt lift workout program under Leandro Carvalho.

    So fit walking into your schedule wherever you can- during your lunch break,
    in the morning, or whenever it’s convenient for you.

    Having more healthy cells and tissues will definitely improve your metabolism since it is your
    cells and tissues that metabolize your calories to fuel your bodily functions, after all.

  6. “Exceptions to the author’s reserve mostly center on Gandhi’s limitations as a family man. Our designers not only need to know what game player wants, what’s more important game player needs. This will not impair the functionality of the phones and will not require that any new cables be laid out, however, it does mean that each computer will need to have its own DSL modem in order to distinguish the digital and voice signals being sent over the line.

Leave a comment

Your e-mail address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Guidelines

  • Comments should be relevant to the article and not be used to promote your own work, products or services.
  • Please keep your comments brief (we recommend a maximum of 250 words).
  • We reserve the right to remove excessively long, inappropriate or offensive entries.

Show/hide formatting guidelines

Tag Description Example Output
<a> Hyperlink <a href="http://www.google.com">google</a> google
<abbr> Abbreviation <abbr title="World Health Organisation" >WHO</abbr> WHO
<acronym> Acronym <acronym title="as soon as possible">ASAP</acronym> ASAP
<b> Bold <b>Some text</b> Some text
<blockquote> Quoted from another source <blockquote cite="http://iop.org/">IOP</blockquote>
IOP
<cite> Cite <cite>Diagram 1</cite> Diagram 1
<del> Deleted text From this line<del datetime="2012-12-17"> this text was deleted</del> From this line this text was deleted
<em> Emphasized text In this line<em> this text was emphasised</em> In this line this text was emphasised
<i> Italic <i>Some text</i> Some text
<q> Quotation WWF goal is to build a future <q cite="http://www.worldwildlife.org/who/index.html">
where people live in harmony with nature and animals</q>
WWF goal is to build a future
where people live in harmony with nature and animals
<strike> Strike text <strike>Some text</strike> Some text
<strong> Stronger emphasis of text <strong>Some text</strong> Some text
WordPress Appliance - Powered by TurnKey Linux