Voting rule
Named by 9 essays across one field — each of them below, with the objects they name alongside it.
The majority that goes in a circle
Every voter hands in a ranking, and a ranking is transitive by construction. Compare the candidates two at a time and let the majority decide each pair, and the verdicts need not fit together into a ranking at all.
Five rules and five winners
Twenty-seven ranked ballots, five entirely reasonable ways of counting them, and five different candidates declared the winner. Every count is correct, every rule is defensible, and the answer turns out to be a property of the rule rather than of the ballots.
Four conditions, and no rule that has all of them
Five reasonable rules can return five different winners on one set of ballots, which invites the obvious question of which one is right. The answer is that the conditions anybody would write down cannot all hold at once — and here each named rule's own violation is found by search rather than quoted.
A lie that pays
A ballot is usually read as a report of a preference. This one reads it as a move, and walks every move one voter has — all six rankings, the winner each produces, and the ones that beat honesty.
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.
How few voters any majority needs
Any pattern of head-to-head majorities whatever — cycles within cycles, a candidate who beats the winner of every other contest and loses to its loser — can be produced by voters who each rank the candidates sensibly. McGarvey's recipe needs n(n − 1) of them for n candidates. The truth is far fewer: every pattern on five candidates takes three voters at most, a counting argument shows the number must eventually grow, and it grows only like n divided by its logarithm.
The fewest swaps to a winner
When no candidate beats every other head to head, Charles Dodgson proposed in 1876 to elect the one that is closest to doing so — the candidate that the fewest swaps of neighbouring names on the ballots would turn into a winner of every contest. The rule is easy to state and hard to compute: the count needs a search, and deciding the winner is provably among the hardest problems of its kind. A much simpler count, the votes still to be won, usually agrees, more often the larger the electorate.
Named alongside it
The objects these essays reach for when they reach for this one.
Preference profileCondorcet cyclePairwise majorityAggregationConsistencyCounterexampleExhaustive searchMajorityBorda countCounting argumentImpossibilityIndependence of irrelevant alternatives