Condorcet efficiency

Efficiency of several voting systems with a spatial model and candidates distributed similarly to the 201 voters^[1]

As candidates become more ideologically clustered relative to the voter distribution, some voting methods perform more poorly at finding the Condorcet winner.^[1]

Condorcet efficiency is a measurement of the performance of voting methods. It is defined as the percentage of elections for which the Condorcet winner (the candidate who is preferred over all others in head-to-head races) is elected, provided there is one.^[2]^[3]^[4]

A voting method with 100% efficiency would always pick the Condorcet winner, when one exists, and a method that never chose the Condorcet winner would have 0% efficiency. The outcome of a referendum on policy can be efficient if the conditions of the efficient voter rule are met.^[5]

Efficiency is not only affected by the voting method, but is a function of the number of voters, number of candidates, and of any strategies used by the voters.^[1]

It was initially developed in 1984 by Samuel Merrill III, along with Social utility efficiency.^[1]

A related, generalized measure is Smith efficiency, which measures how often a voting method elects a candidate in the Smith set. Except in elections where the Smith set includes all candidates, Smith efficiency is a measure that can be used to differentiate between voting methods in all elections, because unlike the CW, the Smith set always exists. A 100% Smith-efficient method is guaranteed to be 100% Condorcet-efficient, and likewise with 0%.

References

↑ ^1.0 ^1.1 ^1.2 ^1.3 Merrill, Samuel (1984). "A Comparison of Efficiency of Multicandidate Electoral Systems". American Journal of Political Science 28 (1): 23–48. doi:10.2307/2110786. ISSN 0092-5853.
↑ Gehrlein, William V.; Valognes, Fabrice (2001-01-01). "Condorcet efficiency: A preference for indifference" (in en). Social Choice and Welfare 18 (1): 193–205. doi:10.1007/s003550000071. ISSN 1432-217X.
↑ Merrill, Samuel (1985). "A statistical model for Condorcet efficiency based on simulation under spatial model assumptions" (in en). Public Choice 47 (2): 389–403. doi:10.1007/BF00127534. ISSN 0048-5829. http://link.springer.com/10.1007/BF00127534.
↑ Gehrlein, William V. (2011). Voting paradoxes and group coherence : the condorcet efficiency of voting rules. Lepelley, Dominique.. Berlin: Springer. ISBN 978-3-642-03107-6. OCLC 695387286. https://www.worldcat.org/oclc/695387286.
↑ Anderson, David A. (2020). "Environmental Exigencies and the Efficient Voter Rule". Economies 8 (4): 7. doi:10.3390/economies8040100.

0.00

(0 votes)

Original source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Condorcet efficiency. Read more

[:0-1] 1.0 ^1.1 ^1.2 ^1.3 Merrill, Samuel (1984). "A Comparison of Efficiency of Multicandidate Electoral Systems". American Journal of Political Science 28 (1): 23–48. doi:10.2307/2110786. ISSN 0092-5853.

[2] Gehrlein, William V.; Valognes, Fabrice (2001-01-01). "Condorcet efficiency: A preference for indifference" (in en). Social Choice and Welfare 18 (1): 193–205. doi:10.1007/s003550000071. ISSN 1432-217X.

[3] Merrill, Samuel (1985). "A statistical model for Condorcet efficiency based on simulation under spatial model assumptions" (in en). Public Choice 47 (2): 389–403. doi:10.1007/BF00127534. ISSN 0048-5829. http://link.springer.com/10.1007/BF00127534.

[4] Gehrlein, William V. (2011). Voting paradoxes and group coherence : the condorcet efficiency of voting rules. Lepelley, Dominique.. Berlin: Springer. ISBN 978-3-642-03107-6. OCLC 695387286. https://www.worldcat.org/oclc/695387286.

[5] Anderson, David A. (2020). "Environmental Exigencies and the Efficient Voter Rule". Economies 8 (4): 7. doi:10.3390/economies8040100.

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

Condorcet efficiency

Topic: Social

See also

References