Skip to main content
Log in

The paradox of multiple elections

  • Article
  • Published:
Social Choice and Welfare Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract.

Assume that voters must choose between voting yes (Y) and voting no (N) on three propositions on a referendum. If the winning combination is NYY on the first, second, and third propositions, respectively, the paradox of multiple elections is that NYY can receive the fewest votes of the 23 = 8 combinations. Several variants of this paradox are illustrated, and necessary and sufficient conditions for its occurrence, related to the “incoherence” of support, are given.

The paradox is shown, via an isomorphism, to be a generalization of the well-known paradox of voting. One real-life example of the paradox involving voting on propositions in California, in which not a single voter voted on the winning side of all the propositions, is given. Several empirical examples of variants of the paradox that manifested themselves in federal elections – one of which led to divided government – and legislative votes in the US House of Representatives, are also analyzed. Possible normative implications of the paradox, such as allowing voters to vote directly for combinations using approval voting or the Borda count, are discussed.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
$34.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or eBook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Additional information

Received: 31 July 1996 / Accepted: 1 October 1996

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Brams, S., Kilgour, D. & Zwicker, W. The paradox of multiple elections. Soc Choice Welfare 15, 211–236 (1998). https://doi.org/10.1007/s003550050101

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s003550050101

Keywords

Navigation