What is voting paradox

Instead , the majority can choose different options in the same vote in some cases, depending on how the vote is structured. The best way to explain the paradox is by looking at a simple example. Assume that a local government wants its citizens to vote on policies to fight poverty. There are three options to consider: A a minimum wage, B improved social security, and C a negative income tax. To ensure an absolute majority, one of the officials suggests that the government should try pairwise votes.

That means the public could first choose between options A and B first, and then between the winner of the first vote and C. That way, there should be a clear winner at the end, right?

Well, no. In this example, a vote between options A and B results in young and old voters choosing A, giving A the majority. In the second round A vs. C , the winner is C , which is preferred by both the middle-aged and the old voters. By contrast, if A vs. Now consider an electorate composed of three voters: Alice, Bob, and Charlie.

Bob and Charlie are also supposed to have transitive preferences. It is easy to check that if our voters are asked to vote between P- and P, the majority Alice and Charlie will choose P-. But no! The electorate is irrational even if each voter is rational. Other preference orderings will produce a rational electoral choice. But the example shows that the paradox of voting can appear. This theory explains many observable phenomena. It explains the inconsistencies we often find in public opinion surveys.

It may explain why voters vote both for job creation programs and for minimum wages that destroy jobs. It explains the votes on the Muscle Shoals hydroelectric project in the U. Over less than a week in January of that year, and without any senator changing his mind, the U. Neufeld et al. Mathematician Charles L. The act of voting involves a benefit and a cost to the voter.

A benefit is derived if the voter changes the outcome of the election to the one that is desired in such a case, the voter is said to be pivotal. The probability of this happening is very low so the expected benefit is small.

The costs of voting include the use of time and direct travel costs. Calculations show that the cost is typically much larger than the expected benefit. A rational voter should therefore not vote. The paradox is that electoral turnout is relatively high. Possible explanations include irrationality, social customs, and social duties. See also collective choice; majority voting. From: paradox of voting in A Dictionary of Economics ».

Subjects: Social sciences — Economics. View all related items in Oxford Reference ».