Trump, Condorcet and Borda: Voting paradoxes in the 2016 Republican presidential primaries

Peter Kurrild-Klitgaard

doi:10.1016/j.ejpoleco.2017.10.003

Trump, Condorcet and Borda: Voting paradoxes in the 2016 Republican presidential primaries

4 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

The organization of US presidential elections makes them potentially vulnerable to the “voting paradoxes” identified by social choice theorists but rarely documented in real-world elections. Using polling data from the 2016 Republican presidential primaries we identify two possible cases: Early in the pre-primary (2015) a cyclical majority may have existed in Republican voters’ preferences between Bush, Cruz and Walker. Furthermore, later polling data (January-March 2016) suggests that while Trump (who achieved less than 50% of the total Republican primary vote) was the Plurality Winner, he could have been beaten in pairwise contests by at least one other candidate and may have been the Condorcet Loser. The cases confirm the empirical relevance of the theoretical voting paradoxes and the importance of voting procedures.

Original language	English
Article number	3
Journal	European Journal of Political Economy
Volume	55
Pages (from-to)	29-35
ISSN	0176-2680
DOIs	https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejpoleco.2017.10.003
Publication status	Published - Dec 2018

Access to Document

10.1016/j.ejpoleco.2017.10.003

Cite this

@article{bfedc4b5d30a457ebd9895916062233c,

title = "Trump, Condorcet and Borda: Voting paradoxes in the 2016 Republican presidential primaries",

abstract = "The organization of US presidential elections makes them potentially vulnerable to the “voting paradoxes” identified by social choice theorists but rarely documented in real-world elections. Using polling data from the 2016 Republican presidential primaries we identify two possible cases: Early in the pre-primary (2015) a cyclical majority may have existed in Republican voters{\textquoteright} preferences between Bush, Cruz and Walker. Furthermore, later polling data (January-March 2016) suggests that while Trump (who achieved less than 50% of the total Republican primary vote) was the Plurality Winner, he could have been beaten in pairwise contests by at least one other candidate and may have been the Condorcet Loser. The cases confirm the empirical relevance of the theoretical voting paradoxes and the importance of voting procedures.",

author = "Peter Kurrild-Klitgaard",

year = "2018",

month = dec,

doi = "10.1016/j.ejpoleco.2017.10.003",

language = "English",

volume = "55",

pages = "29--35",

journal = "European Journal of Political Economy",

issn = "0176-2680",

publisher = "Elsevier",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Trump, Condorcet and Borda

T2 - Voting paradoxes in the 2016 Republican presidential primaries

AU - Kurrild-Klitgaard, Peter

PY - 2018/12

Y1 - 2018/12

N2 - The organization of US presidential elections makes them potentially vulnerable to the “voting paradoxes” identified by social choice theorists but rarely documented in real-world elections. Using polling data from the 2016 Republican presidential primaries we identify two possible cases: Early in the pre-primary (2015) a cyclical majority may have existed in Republican voters’ preferences between Bush, Cruz and Walker. Furthermore, later polling data (January-March 2016) suggests that while Trump (who achieved less than 50% of the total Republican primary vote) was the Plurality Winner, he could have been beaten in pairwise contests by at least one other candidate and may have been the Condorcet Loser. The cases confirm the empirical relevance of the theoretical voting paradoxes and the importance of voting procedures.

AB - The organization of US presidential elections makes them potentially vulnerable to the “voting paradoxes” identified by social choice theorists but rarely documented in real-world elections. Using polling data from the 2016 Republican presidential primaries we identify two possible cases: Early in the pre-primary (2015) a cyclical majority may have existed in Republican voters’ preferences between Bush, Cruz and Walker. Furthermore, later polling data (January-March 2016) suggests that while Trump (who achieved less than 50% of the total Republican primary vote) was the Plurality Winner, he could have been beaten in pairwise contests by at least one other candidate and may have been the Condorcet Loser. The cases confirm the empirical relevance of the theoretical voting paradoxes and the importance of voting procedures.

UR - https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0176268017300782

U2 - 10.1016/j.ejpoleco.2017.10.003

DO - 10.1016/j.ejpoleco.2017.10.003

M3 - Journal article

SN - 0176-2680

VL - 55

SP - 29

EP - 35

JO - European Journal of Political Economy

JF - European Journal of Political Economy

M1 - 3

ER -

Trump, Condorcet and Borda: Voting paradoxes in the 2016 Republican presidential primaries

Abstract

Access to Document

Other files and links

Fingerprint

Cite this