Paper detail

Semi-Random Impossibilities of Condorcet Criterion

The Condorcet criterion (CC) is a classical and well-accepted criterion for voting. Unfortunately, it is incompatible with many other desiderata including participation (Par), half-way monotonicity (HM), Maskin monotonicity (MM), and strategy-proofness (SP). Such incompatibilities are often known as impossibility theorems, and are proved by worst-case analysis. Previous work has investigated the likelihood for these impossibilities to occur under certain models, which are often criticized of being unrealistic. We strengthen previous work by proving the first set of semi-random impossibilities for voting rules to satisfy CC and the more general, group versions of the four desiderata: for any sufficiently large number of voters $n$, any size of the group $1\le B\le \sqrt n$, any voting rule $r$, and under a large class of {\em semi-random} models that include Impartial Culture, the likelihood for $r$ to satisfy CC and Par, CC and HM, CC and MM, or CC and SP is $1-Ω(\frac{B}{\sqrt n})$. This matches existing lower bounds for CC and Par ($B=1$) and CC and SP ($B\le \sqrt n$), showing that many commonly-studied voting rules are already asymptotically optimal in such cases.

preprint2022arXivOpen access
0citations
0reviews
0saves
Nocode
Nodataset
0institutions

Next steps

Decide what to do with this paper

Use like or dislike for the fast social read. The more specific scholarly feedback stays available below when needed.

Log in to curate

Reading frame

Keep the important context close to the paper

Keep the important signals around this paper in one place: votes, save state, collection context, reviews and the metadata you need before deciding what to do next.

Authors

Institutions

Add specific reaction

Move through the context

Research map

Open full explorer

Move through nearby people, institutions, topics and adjacent work without leaving the paper page.

Building this graph slice

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

Structured reviews

0 review(s)

ContributeLeave structured feedbackUse the review template when you have a concrete strength, concern or method question.Open review form

No structured reviews yet. High-signal critique starts here.

Work discussion

0 comment(s)

DiscussAdd a high-signal commentKeep quick notes, caveats and replication pointers separate from formal reviews.Open comment form

No discussion yet. The first strong comment sets the tone.