Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Hostname: page-component-7b7567c8c-tnzcf Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-14T09:58:02.977Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

21 - Borda versus Condorcet

from Part III - Special Topics

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 May 2018

Samuel Bruce Smith
Affiliation:
St Joseph's University, Philadelphia
Get access

Summary

In this chapter, we explore the debate over voting methods that marked the birth of social choice theory as an academic field. Let us briefly recall the history and point of contention. On one side, we have the Chevalier Jean Charles de Borda, a mathematician and military scientist. Borda proposed his voting method in a lecture to the French Academy of Sciences urging the body to adopt his voting method for member elections. Borda's method, as we know, converts voter preferences into a single ranking, the social welfare. While ties do occur, they are not so common. In 1780, Borda published the first mathematical proof of fairness. He proved that the Borda Count can never elect a candidate ranked last by a majority of the voters (a Majority Loser). We proved this result ourselves in Theorem 12.15. In fact, Borda proved a stronger theorem. Answering the open question from Chapter 12, we state the following theorem:

Theorem 21.1 Borda's Theorem The Borda Count satisfies the Condorcet Loser Criterion.

On the other side of the debate is the Marquis Nicolas de Condorcet, a prominent intellectual of the Enlightenment period in France. Condorcet also had mathematical evidence supporting his political ideals for elections. Condorcet had a proof that the best chance for achieving the “correct” result in an election is to obey the majority opinion. Condorcet's Jury Theorem (Theorem 7.10) was stated in Chapter 7. For Condorcet, the majority opinion is expressed through head-to-head Simple Majority elections. As we have seen, the Borda Count does not always select the majority winner as the social choice and so violates a basic principle of fairness.

It was Condorcet himself who pointed out the principal obstacle to his own majoritarian ideals. When there are three or more candidates, the majority opinion, as expressed through head-to-head elections, can be fundamentally conflicted. We can have a Condorcet Paradox. Moving ahead almost 200 years to 1951, Kenneth Arrow used the Condorcet Paradox to prove his Impossibility Theorem, beginning the modern era of social choice theory.

Information

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Book purchase

Temporarily unavailable

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

  • Borda versus Condorcet
  • Samuel Bruce Smith, St Joseph's University, Philadelphia
  • Book: Chance, Strategy, and Choice
  • Online publication: 11 May 2018
  • Chapter DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781316026786.024
Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

  • Borda versus Condorcet
  • Samuel Bruce Smith, St Joseph's University, Philadelphia
  • Book: Chance, Strategy, and Choice
  • Online publication: 11 May 2018
  • Chapter DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781316026786.024
Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

  • Borda versus Condorcet
  • Samuel Bruce Smith, St Joseph's University, Philadelphia
  • Book: Chance, Strategy, and Choice
  • Online publication: 11 May 2018
  • Chapter DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781316026786.024
Available formats
×