|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
"This is paradoxical, because it means that majority wishes can be in conflict with each other."
What's the conflict?--Chealer 07:23, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
Renaming to "Condorcet's paradox"
Why was this page thus titled? A quick Google search shows that "Condorcet's paradox" is not significantly less popular than "voting paradox", but the latter term is less useful. How would you rewrite the sentence in the opening paragraph of Condorcet method that currently reads "Mainly because of Condorcet's paradox, a Condorcet Winner will not always exist in a given set of votes."?
Is Condorcet's paradox the only voting paradox? One Web page states "A voting paradox is where the election outcome is not what we think it should be. " which indicates that Condorcet's paradox is an example of a voting paradox.
I'd argue for renaming this page "Condorcet's paradox", and having the page "voting paradox" either redirect to it, or reference it.
I agree - this should be renamed Condorcet's Paradox-- Annie
- The above discussion is not dated, but currently Google gives much less hits for "Condorcet's paradox" than for "voting paradox".--Chealer 07:23, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
- "Condorcet Paradox" yields about 13,000 hits to "voting paradox"'s 16,000. I'd agree that the former term is more informative about the content of the article. - 22.214.171.124 01:13, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
There are many paradoxes related to voting, and the topic is so vast that a mere bibliography of academic papers on the subject fills almost 400 A4 pages. Also, some experts claim that Borda was the first person to spot the problem. An interesting question is why, say, the ancient Greeks did not discover it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 126.96.36.199 (talk) 08:16, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
I also argue for naming this page back to Condorcet paradox; wikipedia uses the related term Condorcet Method, and as a user mentions above, there may be other voting paradoxes.
Dialectric 19:29, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
Problem with Example(s)
I'm missing the paradox in the second example; it looks to me like the group is evenly split, which is not a paradox. Nobody thinks it's contradictory if we have two people vote differently. -- Sotek.
I agree with Sotek -- there is no paradox apparent in the examples cited, since in each case, no winner can be declared (except arbitrarily), since all candidates have an equal number of votes. I think something is missing here.
Agreed. I removed the example in question. 188.8.131.52 14:10, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
It still seems that the example used may not most clearly illustrate the concept. The entry on marquis de condorcet describes the paradox as occuring in situations where a majority favors canidate A, whereas in this case, there is no majority.
184.108.40.206 19:11, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
Announcement: The above is the discussion tab for a new article Social Choice and Individual Values. Input is welcome through the article, the Talk page, or to me. The plan is to gather comment, corrections, or suggestions for probably at least a couple of weeks, make final changes, then go from there. Links to related articles (indluding the present one) would come after revision. Thanks for your help.
Thomasmeeks 22:52, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
I also favour the argument that there could be many different voting "paradoxes" and that this page covers only one of these. (I don't know why we persist in attaching the word 'paradox' to every naive wish easily rebuked with a napkin and five minutes by anyone willing to show up with a sharp pencil.)
One possibility is to rename the page "Condorcet voting paradox" so that the title remains meaningful without having to first read the article. On the downside, there are quite a few inbound links, so the rename project would be tedious and annoying. — MaxEnt 12:35, 10 June 2014 (UTC)