Examples Of Condorcet Paradox

The Condorcet paradox applies to a voting occurrence, under a democratic government, where the preferences of one person are considered complete, meaning that one has the ability to compare choices and place them in order of preference, and transitive but the collective result is intransitive. The reason for this contradiction is the fact that the preferences among people may differ. An example of the paradox may be evidenced if Voter A has the following preference: equal Pay for women> accepting Syrian refugees>securing the US-Mexico border. In contrast, Voter B’s preference is: securing the US–Mexico border>equal pay for women > accepting Syrian refugees. Lastly, Voter C’s preferences may be: accepting Syrian Refugees>equal Pay for women>securing

the US-Mexico border. Individually, every voter has a preference that is complete and transitive. For example, Voter A has ranked the choices in order of personal preference and they are transitive in that equal pay for women>securing the US-Mexico border and accepting Syrian refugees>securing the US border. Thus, for Voter A, equal pay for women>securing the US-Mexico border.

However, the preferences for the group as a whole are not transitive. Specifically, equal pay for women is preferred to accepting Syrian refugees 2:1, accepting Syrian refugees is preferred to securing the US-Mexico border 2:1, and securing the US-Mexico border beats equal pay for women 2:1. In this model, there is no transitivity and there lies the paradox. The implications of this paradox is that a truly democratic government, where each individual has an equal say is impossible. This can be used as an explanation as to why in many democratic systems, a small group of people are elected to represent the individuals that make up the state.