Condorcet Voting Paradox
In modern times there has been much controversy regarding voting and “the best” or
“ideal” method recommended for use in order to create a fair and democratic society.
Many people question or misunderstand the paradigm of Condorcet’s voting paradox.
This voting paradox dates back to the 18th Century and has many evidential
influences on the formation of governments and laws today. In most cases we witness
either the Condorcet winner criterion or the Condorcet loser criterion.
Marquis de Condorcet was an 18th Century French political theorist who
formulated a particular voting method which came into play when voting using a
tally. It works in such a way that the candidate who beats each of the other (two)
candidates in a run-off election, wins.
Here we can see how run-off voting systems have been implemented in current
Irish Society. One of the more recent and influential memories of this style of voting
in Ireland took place during the 1990 presidential election. At the time of this election
many people were unsure of which of the Condorcet criterions would be more
influential (the winner or loser).
On Wednesday November 7th 1990, hundreds of thousands of Irish citizens
made their way to the polls. Their main priority was to ensure that one of three
candidates was fairly selected as president of the country. The three candidates were
Mary Robinson, the independent TD nominated by the Labour Party, Austin Currie of
Fine Gael and of course, the well known Fianna Fáil candidate, Brian Lenihan. The
dominance of Fianna Fáil became blatantly evident by the number of votes cast on
his behalf during the first round of the election. This presidential election displays
clearly the difference between run-off voting and the run of the mill past-the-post
voting. In this presidential election the Condorcet loser criterion became evident after
the first round whereby Austin Currie was eliminated due to the clear success of his
opponents. During the first round of head-to-head competition Currie was eliminated.
This ruled out his chances of winning the overall election.
On the other hand, the Condorcet winner criterion was not applicable in this
context due to the presence of three candidates and lack of head-to-head competition.
Had the use of the Condorcet voting paradox been present in this election, Lenihan
would have won. It was however, not applicable due to the fact that no candidate
attained the necessary majority. Yet, on the contrary, Austin Currie managed to attain
the necessary minority. When Currie was eliminated his votes were fairly reassigned
to the voter’s second choice. It was at this time that Robinson overtook Lenihan by
receiving over 80% of his votes.
This method of preferential voting completely contradicts the presence of a
Condorcet winner yet facilitates and proves the presence of a Condorcet loser.