Social Choice and Welfare

, Volume 44, Issue 3, pp 493–517 | Cite as

Condorcet winning sets

  • Edith ElkindEmail author
  • Jérôme Lang
  • Abdallah Saffidine


An alternative is said to be a Condorcet winner of an election if it is preferred to any other alternative by a majority of voters. While this is a very attractive solution concept, many elections do not have a Condorcet winner. In this paper, we propose a set-valued relaxation of this concept, which we call a Condorcet winning set: such sets consist of alternatives that collectively dominate any other alternative. We also consider a more general version of this concept, where instead of domination by a majority of voters we require domination by a given fraction \(\theta \) of voters; we refer to such sets as \(\theta \)-winning sets. We explore social choice-theoretic and algorithmic aspects of these solution concepts, both theoretically and empirically.



Some of the results of this paper were previously presented at the 22nd International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI’11) under the title “Choosing Collectively Optimal Sets of Alternatives Based on the Condorcet Criterion”, and we would like to thank the anonymous referees of IJCAI’11 and Social Choice and Welfare for their helpful comments. We also thank Bruno Escoffier, Ron Holzman, Christian Laforest, Jean-François Laslier, Hervé Moulin, Remzi Sanver and Bill Zwicker for useful discussions. Abdallah Saffidine thanks the Australian Research Council’s (ARC) Discovery Projects funding scheme (project DP 120102023). Part of this work was done when Edith Elkind was affiliated with Nanyang Technological University (Singapore) and supported by National Research Foundation (Singapore) under grant RF2009-08 and by NTU start-up grant.


  1. Alon N, Brightwell G, Kierstead HA, Kostochka AV, Winkler P (2006) Dominating sets in \(k\)-majority tournaments. J Comb Theory Ser B 96(3):374–387CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Alon N, Spencer J (1992) Probabilistic method. John Wiley, HobokenGoogle Scholar
  3. Betzler N, Slinko A, Uhlmann J (2013) On the computation of fully proportional representation. J Artif Intell Res 47:475–519Google Scholar
  4. Cervone D, Hardin C, Zwicker W (2012) Personal communicationGoogle Scholar
  5. Cervone D, Zwicker W (2011) Personal communicationGoogle Scholar
  6. Chamberlin JR, Courant PN (1983) Representative deliberations and representative decisions: proportional representation and the Borda rule. Am Polit Sci Rev 77(3):718–733CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Cornaz D, Galand L, Spanjaard O (2012) Bounded single-peaked width and proportional representation. In: Proceedings of the 20th European conference on artificial intelligence (pp 270–275)Google Scholar
  8. Elkind E, Faliszewski P, Skowron P, Slinko A (2014) Properties of multiwinner voting rules. In: Proceedings of the 13th international conference on autonomous agents and multiagent systems (pp 53–60)Google Scholar
  9. Fishburn P (1981) An analysis of simple voting systems for electing committees. SIAM J Appl Math 41(3):499–502CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Garey M, Johnson D (1979) Computers and intractability: a guide to the theory of NP-completeness. W. H. Freeman and Company, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  11. Gehrlein W (1985) The Condorcet criterion and committee selection. Math Soc Sci 10(3):199–209CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Geist C (2014) Finding preference profiles of Condorcet dimension k via SAT. arXiv:1402.4303
  13. Jones B, Radcliff B, Taber C, Timpone R (1995) Condorcet winners and the paradox of voting: probability calculations for weak preference orders. Am Polit Sci Rev 89(1):137–144CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Kaymak B, Sanver R (2003) Sets of alternatives as Condorcet winners. Soc Choice Welf 20(3):477–494CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Laforest C (2012) Personal communicationGoogle Scholar
  16. Laslier J-F (1997) Tournament solutions and majority voting. Springer, New YorkCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Lu T, Boutilier C (2011) Budgeted social choice: from consensus to personalized decision making. In: Proceedings of the 22nd international joint conference on artificial intelligenceGoogle Scholar
  18. McGarvey D (1953) A theorem on the construction of voting paradoxes. Econometrica 21(4):608–610CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Megiddo N, Vishkin U (1988) On finding a minimum dominating set in a tournament. Theor Comput Sci 61:307–316CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Monroe BL (1995) Fully proportional representation. Am Polit Sci Rev 89:925–940CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Procaccia A, Rosenschein J, Zohar A (2008) On the complexity of achieving proportional representation. Soc Choice Welf 30(3):353–362CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Ratliff T (2003) Some startling inconsistencies when electing committees. Soc Choice Welf 21(3):433–454CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Scott A, Fey M (2012) The minimal covering set in large tournaments. Soc Choice Welf 38(1):1–9CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Skowron P, Faliszewski P, Slinko A (2013a) Achieving fully proportional representation is easy in practice. In: Proceedings of the 12th international conference on autonomous agents and multiagent systems (pp 399–406)Google Scholar
  25. Skowron P, Faliszewski P, Slinko A (2013b) Fully proportional representation as resource allocation: approximability results. In: Proceedings of the 23rd international joint conference on artificial intelligence (pp 353–359)Google Scholar
  26. Skowron P, Yu L, Faliszewski P, Elkind E (2013) The complexity of fully proportional representation for single-crossing electorates. In: Proceedings of the 6th international symposium on algorithmic game theory (pp 1–12)Google Scholar
  27. Tideman T (1987) Independence of clones as a criterion for voting rules. Soc Choice Welf 4(3):185–206CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Yu L, Chan H, Elkind E (2013) Multiwinner elections under preferences that are single-peaked on a tree. In: Proceedings of the 23rd international joint conference on artificial intelligence (pp 425–431)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Edith Elkind
    • 1
    Email author
  • Jérôme Lang
    • 2
  • Abdallah Saffidine
    • 3
  1. 1.University of OxfordOxfordUK
  2. 2.LAMSADEUniversité Paris-DauphineParisFrance
  3. 3.School of Computer Science and EngineeringUniversity of New South WalesSydneyAustralia

Personalised recommendations