Learn Liberty

How to Rig a Majority Vote

Do you think that a majority vote is always the fairest way to reach a consensus? Think again! In this Learn Liberty video, Professor Diana Thomas illustrates a paradoxical outcome that arises when people vote on three or more items – known as Condorcet’s Paradox – and proves that it is quite easy to manipulate the voting process in this scenario.

Condorcet’s paradox occurs when a vote is taken on a set of three options that nobody ranks in the same order. Even though a vote of two of the options may yield a consistent winner, it’s impossible to achieve a consistent outcome between all three choices. Usually, a majority vote is taken on only two options, so whoever gets to choose which two options are on the table (known as the agenda setter) has the power to dictate the winner of the vote.

The Impossibility of Democracy: Condorcet’s Paradox [blog post]: A written explanation of Condorcet’s paradox and how it poses problems for the efficacy of democracy


What’s So Good about Democracy? [article]: A Freeman article critiquing democratic systems from a definitional, logical, and social perspective


“Public Choice” [encyclopedia entry]: The Concise Encyclopedia of Economics entry on public choice theory


Arrow’s Theorem Proves No Voting System Is Perfect [article]: An explanation of Arrow’s Impossibility Theorem, a theory that states that no consistent or fair voting system can lead to sensible results


The Science of Voting [article]: Another clear explanation of Arrow’s Impossibility Theorem and proposed solutions to voting paradoxes


How to Rig a Majority Vote

Voting is supposed to be about getting what the majority wants. But that is not always the way it works. Let's imagine that you and your two friends Jim and John are on your way home from a party. The three of you want to get something to eat before you head home. All three of you immediately call out a different preference, so there is no clear majority in favor of any option. But all of you want equal say in the decision about where to eat. So you propose voting on two options at a time to figure out what the group's preferences are. So you first say, “Tacos versus burgers - which do you guys want?” Personally, you want pizza more than anything, but you'd also be alright with tacos. Burgers sound awful right now.

So you vote tacos. Jim he votes burgers. John votes tacos. So tacos are the clear winner. But since pizza wasn’t even on the table for the last vote you ask for another round of voting to see how pizza ranks against the current winner. Your friends agree. In this new matchup tacos versus pizza you obviously vote for pizza. Jim also votes for pizza. John is left as the only person who would prefer tacos to pizza. So pizza appears to be the new champion. You’re thrilled.

But now Jim is not happy. He says, “That is not fair. We decided that tacos win out of burgers and pizza wins out over tacos, but how do you know that there is not a majority in favor of burgers over pizza. We never voted on that.” You counter, “That doesn’t matter. We already voted on burgers.”

But Jim doesn’t budge, so to make him happy you agree to have one last vote - burgers versus pizza. You of course vote for pizza. Jim votes for burgers like you expected, but now John also raises his hand in favor of burgers. So burger are declared the winner. What happened?

Well, let's look at everyone's preferences again. As you can see, the problem is no one ranks any of the options in the same order, so even though a vote between any two options yields a winner, between all three choices it is impossible to achieve a consistent outcome. This is called Condorcet's Paradox.

In this scenario voting will result in what we called a cycle, so after voting on two pairings you may seem to have a clear answer, but if you change the order in which you voted on the pairings you would get a completely different result. None of the three options is preferred by a majority of the voters, and voting cannot resolve the problem. If you are surprised by this let me take you one step further.

The fact that any outcome may be possible implies that whoever gets to decide the order of the options is really the one who picks the outcome. This person is called the agenda setter. If the agenda setter is savvy and if he has any inkling of the relative preferences of the other voters, he can change the order of voting to achieve his preferred outcome. If you had been savvy you would have made the last vote tacos versus pizza and you would have gotten what you wanted. But would that have been fair?

The Condorcet Paradox shows that taking a vote will not always select what the majority prefers. In fact, when an agenda setter manipulates the voting process he is the one who will decide what the group does.

Right-click the link below and select "Save Link" or "Save Target."


Download Video

Right-click the link below and select "Save Link" or "Save Target."


Download MP3

17 Comments

  1. fred

    It would be nice to see more options on the table. Lysander Spooner was right….Choosing between 2 different masters still makes you a slave. 

  2. Matt Wavle

    So it’s not just who counts the vote, but in what order the run-offs are held.  They should all use their own money to buy whatever lunch they’d like to eat.  But if they are all riding in MY car, they we’re likely to go wherever I want to go, or where my potential client or boss wants to go.  
    – The hidden lesson here is to never vote on things that individual liberties.

  3. Daniel Pealer

    One more example proving that the democratic process is flawed and that more decisions should be left up to individuals

  4. RudyJJ

    I think that you guys are missing the point, this is not about peoples individual right to eat what they want. That is merely an analogy to help us understand a problem in plurality and ordinal voting systems. I know we are libertarians, but again this video is not about Individual rights. These voting videos on are generally about working in a plurality voting system, which really isn’t working. I feel like the problem in the USA is that we are working in an ineffective plurality system that leads to self reinforcing 2 party domination. I would like to introduce the Learn Liberty community to non plurality voting systems. This website has a lot of information on election methods.  http://www.rangevoting.org/RangeVoting.html

  5. Greg Gauthier

    Voting is *never* about "getting" what the "majority wants". 

    In fact, it is rarely ever even about "the majority". Voting is about getting the preponderance of a motivated minority what it wants. The motivated minority is motivated by the lure of forcing others around them to conform to their own preferences, as acted out by a proxy, all without having to face any consequences for that. The vast majority of people are mentally and emotionally healthy enough to realize how disgusting and horrible that notion is, and rightly avoids the voting booth. 
  6. agavin2342

    The Condorcet Paradox is a very interesting concept, and seeing this in a simple way illustrates exactly what it means. Very interesting perspective.

  7. Ryan Boyd

    Well, more evidence that First Past the Post isn’t great. Yet, we will still do it because those in power want it. Got to love the Second Dimension of Power.

  8. RudyJJ

    FPTP is not the only voting system the US has used. Some cities like San Francisco have use Instant Runoff Voting. I don’t think it is completely impossible to get rid of FPTP. Then again IRV is still a voting system that leads to 2 party domination. It is possible that the politicians that got IRV to pass knew this and that is the only reason it passed. It is possible that they were indeed as naive as their constituents and IRV is an example of the US using a system that is not FPTP with the intention of having a better voting system. IRV is definitely not the best alternative voting system, but if it is able to pass maybe better voting systems like Range Voting could pass local legislation.

  9. Steve Davies

    So, the agenda setter controls the outcome, but its a probability, not a set outcome. Unless somebody catches on and swings enough votes to "unrig" the outcome.

  10. Kenny Legge

    Great breakdown. I am so excited to see all this information getting out to the masses.

  11. marty lamb

    Perhaps it is time to take stock of the "agenda setters" in Washington…. using this formula… it should be relatively easy…. by watching the pairups AND their order… in the primaries…to figure out JUST WHO the "agenda setters" are PUSHING… interesting….

Add Comment Register



Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

    LearnLiberty_Banner (1)