Misplaced Pages

This article needs additional citations for verification. Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. Find sources: "Best-is-worst paradox" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR (November 2007) (Learn how and when to remove this message)

A joint Politics and Economics series
Social choice and electoral systems
Social choice Mechanism design Comparative politics Comparison List (By country)
Single-winner methodsSingle vote - plurality methods First preference plurality (FPP) Two-round (US: Jungle primary) Partisan primary Instant-runoff UK: Alternative vote (AV) US: Ranked-choice (RCV) Condorcet methods Condorcet-IRV Round-robin voting Minimax Schulze Ranked pairs Maximal lottery Positional voting Plurality (el. IRV) Borda count (el. Baldwin) Antiplurality (el. Coombs) Cardinal voting Score voting Approval voting Majority judgment STAR voting
Proportional representationParty-list Apportionment Highest averages Largest remainders National remnant Biproportional List type Closed list Open list Panachage List-free PR Localized list Quota-remainder methods Hare STV Schulze STV CPO-STV Quota Borda Approval-based committees Thiele's method Phragmen's method Expanding approvals rule Method of equal shares Fractional social choice Direct representation Interactive representation Liquid democracy Fractional approval voting Maximal lottery Random ballot Semi-proportional representation Cumulative SNTV Limited voting
Mixed systemsBy results of combination Mixed-member majoritarian Mixed-member proportional By mechanism of combination Non-compensatory Parallel (superposition) Coexistence Conditional Fusion (majority bonus) Compensatory Seat linkage system UK: 'AMS' NZ: 'MMP' Vote linkage system Negative vote transfer Mixed ballot Supermixed systems Dual-member proportional Rural–urban proportional Majority jackpot By ballot type Single vote Double simultaneous vote Dual-vote
Paradoxes and pathologiesSpoiler effects Spoiler effect Cloning paradox Frustrated majorities paradox Center squeeze Pathological response Perverse response Best-is-worst paradox No-show paradox Multiple districts paradox Strategic voting Lesser evil voting Exaggeration Truncation Turkey-raising Paradoxes of majority rule Tyranny of the majority Discursive dilemma Conflicting majorities paradox
Social and collective choiceImpossibility theorems Arrow's theorem Majority impossibility Moulin's impossibility theorem McKelvey–Schofield chaos theorem Gibbard's theorem Positive results Median voter theorem Condorcet's jury theorem May's theorem Condorcet dominance theorems Harsanyi's utilitarian theorem
Politics portal Economics portal Mathematics portal
v t e

In social choice theory, the best-is-worst paradox occurs when a voting rule declares the same candidate to be both the best and worst possible winner. The worst candidate can be identified by reversing each voter's ballot (to rank candidates from worst-to-best), then applying the voting rule to the reversed ballots find a new "anti-winner".

Rules that never exhibit a best-is-worst paradox are said to satisfy the reversal criterion, which states that if every voter's opinions on each candidate are perfectly reversed (i.e. they rank candidates from worst to best), the outcome of the election should be reversed as well, meaning the first- and last- place finishers should switch places. In other words, the results of the election should not depend arbitrarily on whether voters rank candidates from best to worst (and then select the best candidate), or whether we ask them to rank candidates from worst to best (and then select the least-bad candidate).

Methods that satisfy reversal symmetry include the Borda count, ranked pairs, Kemeny–Young, and Schulze. Most rated voting systems, including approval and score voting, satisfy the criterion as well. Best-is-worst paradoxes can occur in ranked-choice runoff voting (RCV) and minimax. A well-known example is the 2022 Alaska special election, where candidate Mary Peltola was both the winner and anti-winner.

Examples

Instant-runoff voting

Consider a preferential system where 11 voters express their preferences as:

• 5 voters prefer A then B then C
• 4 voters prefer B then C then A
• 2 voters prefer C then A then B

With the Borda count A would get 23 points (5×3+4×1+2×2), B would get 24 points, and C would get 19 points, so B would be elected. In instant-runoff, C would be eliminated in the first round and A would be elected in the second round by 7 votes to 4.

Now reversing the preferences:

• 5 voters prefer C then B then A
• 4 voters prefer A then C then B
• 2 voters prefer B then A then C

With the Borda count A would get 21 points (5×1+4×3+2×2), B would get 20 points, and C would get 25 points, so this time C would be elected. In instant-runoff, B would be eliminated in the first round and A would as before be elected in the second round, this time by 6 votes to 5.

Minimax

This example shows that the Minimax method violates the Reversal symmetry criterion. Assume four candidates A, B, C and D with 14 voters with the following preferences:

Since all preferences are strict rankings (no equals are present), all three Minimax methods (winning votes, margins and pairwise opposite) elect the same winners.

Now, the winners are determined for the normal and the reversed order.

Normal order

The results would be tabulated as follows:

• indicates voters who preferred the candidate listed in the column caption to the candidate listed in the row caption
• indicates voters who preferred the candidate listed in the row caption to the candidate listed in the column caption

Result: The candidates A, B, and C form a cycle with clear defeats. D benefits from that since its two losses are relatively close and therefore D's biggest defeat is the closest of all candidates. Thus, D is elected Minimax winner.

Reversed order

The results would be tabulated as follows:

Result: The candidates A, B, and C still form a cycle with clear defeats. Therefore D's biggest defeat is the closest of all candidates, and D is elected Minimax winner.

Conclusion

D is the Minimax winner using the normal preference order and also using the ballots with reversed preference orders. Thus, Minimax fails the Reversal symmetry criterion.

Plurality voting

This example shows that plurality voting violates the Reversal symmetry criterion. Assume three candidates A, B and C and 4 voters with the following preferences:

Note that reversing all the ballots, leads to the same set of ballots, since the reversed preference order of the first voter resembles the preference order of the second, and similarly with the third and fourth.

In the following the Plurality winner is determined. Plurality ballots only contain the single favorite:

Result: The candidates A and B receive 1 vote each, candidate C receives a plurality of 2 votes (50%). Thus, C is elected Plurality winner.

C is the Plurality winner using the normal ballots and also using the reversed ballot. Thus, Plurality fails the Reversal symmetry criterion.

Note, that every voting system that satisfies the Reversal symmetry criterion, would have to lead to a tie in this example (as in every example in which the set of reversed ballots is the same as the set of normal ballots).

STAR voting

This example shows STAR violates the reversal symmetry criterion. In a score ballot, reversed score is calculated as the maximum possible score minus the normal score.

Normal score

Given a 3-candidate election between candidates A, B, and C:

The results are tabulated below:

Result: In the election, candidates A and B have the highest scores, and advance to the runoff round. B wins being preferred over A 3 votes to 2.

Reversed score

Reversing the ballots by subtracting each score from 5 (the maximum score in STAR) gives the following:

The results are tabulated below:

Result: In the reversed ballots, B and C have the highest total score, and B wins being preferred to C 3 votes to 2.

References

1. Schulze, Markus (2024-03-03), The Schulze Method of Voting, arXiv:1804.02973
2. ^ Saari, Donald G. (2012-12-06). Geometry of Voting. Springer Science & Business Media. ISBN 978-3-642-48644-9.

• Electoral system criteria