Voting Paradoxes and How to Deal with Them

VOTING PARADOXES AND HOW TO DEAL WITH THEM. Hannu Nurmi. University of Turku. Turku, Finland. VOTING. Satisfaction and justice in voting outcomes.
Table of contents

Mathematical Models for Research on Cultural Dynamics pp. Lecture Notes in Computer Science.

Voting Paradoxes and How to Deal with Them by Hannu Nurmi - Welcome to Compass Library

Why elections aren't fair and what we can do about it. This is the fundamental problem with two-way comparisons. There is no accounting for degrees of preference. Cycles result from giving equal weight to unequal preferences.


  • EconPapers: Hannu Nurmi, Voting Paradoxes and How to Deal with Them.
  • Sexuality (The New Critical Idiom)!
  • Voting Paradoxes and How to Deal with Them.

The paradox obscures the fact that the voters really do prefer one option. Range voting, which allows voters to express strength of preferences, would presumably succeed in choosing the best capital A. There are many Condorcet Methods, which vary primarily in how they deal with ties, which are very common when a Condorcet winner does not exist. Theseus' ship List of Ship of Theseus examples Sorites. Petersburg Thrift Toil Tullock Value. List of paradoxes Book Logic portal. Retrieved from " https: Decision-making paradoxes Voting theory.

CS1 French-language sources fr.

Access Check

Of even higher curiosity is to discover methods of minimizing the chance of prevalence of assorted paradoxes. Participation Beyond the Ballot Box.

Voting Paradoxes

Participation past the poll field is a welcome boost to the literature on democracy and the function of civil society. It demonstrates that new mechanisms being brought in Western Europe can and do provide the capability to seriously boost the democratic approach. In Pursuit of the White House During this advisor to the most important features of the U. It offers non-technical dialogue of such themes as: The Popular Front in Europe.

The 1996 elections, a book, and voting

Out of the social and monetary turmoil of Europe within the Thirties, the preferred entrance emerged because the spearhead of the left's bid to prevent fascism in its tracks. Since an election affects many others, it could still be rational to cast a vote with only a small chance of affecting the outcome. This view makes testable predictions: Some argue that the paradox appears to ignore the collateral benefits associated with voting, besides affecting the outcome of the vote.

For instance, magnitudes of electoral wins and losses are very closely watched by politicians, their aides, pundits and voters, because they indicate the strength of support for candidates, and tend to be viewed as an inherently more accurate measure of such than mere opinion polls which have to rely on imperfect sampling. However, these arguments themselves ignore that adherents to the paradox believe their individual vote makes a negligible difference; not only to the electoral outcome but also, by extension, to these supposed "collateral benefits".

Paradox of voting

Another argument that has been raised, is that researching who or what to vote for may increase the voter's political knowledge and community awareness, both of which may contribute to a general sense of civic duty, although in such a case the act of voting itself contributes nothing to this. From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.


  • Navigation menu;
  • Condorcet paradox.
  • Post navigation.
  • ;
  • The Fourth Network: How FOX Broke the Rules and Reinvented Television?
  • .

This article is about the contention that an individual's vote will probably not affect the outcome. For the intransitivity of majority rule among three or more alternatives, see Voting paradox. This article needs additional citations for verification.

Voting Paradoxes and How to Deal with Them by Hannu Nurmi

Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. November Learn how and when to remove this template message.