EXAMPLE 3 Exploiting the Condorcet Voting Paradox
We had to be careful in stating the theorem that asserts Concorcet's method is non-manipulable because, as we've seen, elections occur in which there is no winner using Condorcet's method. With three voters and three candidates, it is possible for a voter (the one on the left in this example) to unilaterally change an election from one that yields his or her second choice as the sole winner (Candidate in the example), to one in which there is no winner at all, as this example shows:
Election 1 | |||
---|---|---|---|
Rank | Number of Voters (3) | ||
First choice | |||
Second choice | |||
Third choice |
Election 2 | |||
---|---|---|---|
Rank | Number of Voters (3) | ||
First choice | |||
Second choice | |||
Third choice |
A voter's ability to bring about this kind of change in an election unilaterally, however, is not something that falls within the scope of our formal definition of manipulation. nevertheless, one could argue that there are situations in which you might well prefer having an election with no outcome at all to having an election in which a candidate other I than your top choice emerges as the sole winner.