Skip to main content
Log in

The paradox of voting

An elementary solution for the case of three alternatives

  • Published:
Public Choice Aims and scope Submit manuscript

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

Access this article

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

Instant access to the full article PDF.

References

  1. Black, Duncan.The Theory of Committees and Elections. Cambridge at the University Press (1958, 1963).

  2. Campbell, Colin D. and Gordon Tullock. “Computer Simulation of a Small Voting System,”Economic Journal, LXXV (December, 1965), 853–57.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Garman, Mark B. and Morton I. Kamien. “The Paradox of Voting: Probability Calculations,”Behavioral Science, XIII, 4 (July, 1968) 306–16.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Guilbaud, G. Th. “Les Theories de l'Interet General et le Probleme logique de l'Agregation,”Economie Appliquee, V (1952–53), 501–584, at page 519n.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Klahr, David. “A Computer Simulation of the Paradox of Voting,”American Political Science Review, LX (1966), 384–90.

    Google Scholar 

  6. May, Robert M. “Some Mathematical Remarks on the Paradox of Voting,”Behavioral Science, XVI, 2 (March, 1971), 143–51.

    Google Scholar 

  7. Niemi, Richard G. and Herbert F. Weisberg. “A Mathematical Solution for the Probability of the Paradox of Voting,”Behavioral Science, XIII, 4 (July, 1968), 317–323.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Pomeranz, John E. and Roman L. Weil, Jr. “Calculation of Cyclical Majority Probabilities,” unpublished manuscript, 1967.

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Hansen, T.J., Prince, B.L. The paradox of voting. Public Choice 15, 103–117 (1973). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01718846

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01718846

Keywords

Navigation