Majority
Named by 4 essays across 2 fields — each of them below, with the objects they name alongside it.
The court that contradicts itself
Three judges each answer three questions, and each answers them consistently. Take the majority on each question separately and the answers no longer hang together — the body as a whole endorses a combination no member of it holds, and no rearrangement of the procedure removes the problem.
No rule escapes the doctrinal paradox
A court whose members each hold a consistent position can reach an inconsistent verdict by majority. One such case is easy to build, which invites the hope that a better rule would avoid it — and every rule that responds to the votes at all fails somewhere.
Deciding the premises or the conclusion
A body that cannot be both decisive and coherent has to choose which. The two live options are to vote on the reasons and let the verdict follow, or to vote on the verdict and let the reasons look after themselves — and they reach opposite answers on exactly the profiles the impossibility identifies.
No local rule can count the votes
A ring of cells, each holding 0 or 1, has to agree on whichever value is in the majority — every cell seeing only its neighbours. The best-known rule gets it right most of the time and wrong near a tie; no rule of any radius gets it right always. Yet two rules run one after the other do, on every ring, and the first of them is the traffic rule.
Named alongside it
The objects these essays reach for when they reach for this one.
AggregationConsistencyImpossibilityVoting ruleExhaustive searchJudgement aggregationLogicAxiomCellular automatonComputationCounterexampleDecided by exhaustion