Trump, Condorcet and Borda: Voting paradoxes in the 2016 Republican presidential primaries

Research output: Contribution to journal › Journal article › Research › peer-review

Standard

Trump, Condorcet and Borda : Voting paradoxes in the 2016 Republican presidential primaries. / Kurrild-Klitgaard, Peter.

In: European Journal of Political Economy, Vol. 55, 3, 12.2018, p. 29-35.

Research output: Contribution to journal › Journal article › Research › peer-review

Harvard

Kurrild-Klitgaard, P 2018, 'Trump, Condorcet and Borda: Voting paradoxes in the 2016 Republican presidential primaries', European Journal of Political Economy, vol. 55, 3, pp. 29-35. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejpoleco.2017.10.003

APA

Kurrild-Klitgaard, P. (2018). Trump, Condorcet and Borda: Voting paradoxes in the 2016 Republican presidential primaries. European Journal of Political Economy, 55, 29-35. [3]. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejpoleco.2017.10.003

Vancouver

Kurrild-Klitgaard P. Trump, Condorcet and Borda: Voting paradoxes in the 2016 Republican presidential primaries. European Journal of Political Economy. 2018 Dec;55:29-35. 3. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejpoleco.2017.10.003

Author

Kurrild-Klitgaard, Peter. / Trump, Condorcet and Borda : Voting paradoxes in the 2016 Republican presidential primaries. In: European Journal of Political Economy. 2018 ; Vol. 55. pp. 29-35.

Bibtex

@article{bfedc4b5d30a457ebd9895916062233c,
title = "Trump, Condorcet and Borda: Voting paradoxes in the 2016 Republican presidential primaries",
abstract = "The organization of US presidential elections makes them potentially vulnerable to the “voting paradoxes” identified by social choice theorists but rarely documented in real-world elections. Using polling data from the 2016 Republican presidential primaries we identify two possible cases: Early in the pre-primary (2015) a cyclical majority may have existed in Republican voters{\textquoteright} preferences between Bush, Cruz and Walker. Furthermore, later polling data (January-March 2016) suggests that while Trump (who achieved less than 50% of the total Republican primary vote) was the Plurality Winner, he could have been beaten in pairwise contests by at least one other candidate and may have been the Condorcet Loser. The cases confirm the empirical relevance of the theoretical voting paradoxes and the importance of voting procedures.",
author = "Peter Kurrild-Klitgaard",
year = "2018",
month = dec,
doi = "10.1016/j.ejpoleco.2017.10.003",
language = "English",
volume = "55",
pages = "29--35",
journal = "European Journal of Political Economy",
issn = "0176-2680",
publisher = "Elsevier",

}

RIS

TY - JOUR

T1 - Trump, Condorcet and Borda

T2 - Voting paradoxes in the 2016 Republican presidential primaries

AU - Kurrild-Klitgaard, Peter

PY - 2018/12

Y1 - 2018/12

N2 - The organization of US presidential elections makes them potentially vulnerable to the “voting paradoxes” identified by social choice theorists but rarely documented in real-world elections. Using polling data from the 2016 Republican presidential primaries we identify two possible cases: Early in the pre-primary (2015) a cyclical majority may have existed in Republican voters’ preferences between Bush, Cruz and Walker. Furthermore, later polling data (January-March 2016) suggests that while Trump (who achieved less than 50% of the total Republican primary vote) was the Plurality Winner, he could have been beaten in pairwise contests by at least one other candidate and may have been the Condorcet Loser. The cases confirm the empirical relevance of the theoretical voting paradoxes and the importance of voting procedures.

AB - The organization of US presidential elections makes them potentially vulnerable to the “voting paradoxes” identified by social choice theorists but rarely documented in real-world elections. Using polling data from the 2016 Republican presidential primaries we identify two possible cases: Early in the pre-primary (2015) a cyclical majority may have existed in Republican voters’ preferences between Bush, Cruz and Walker. Furthermore, later polling data (January-March 2016) suggests that while Trump (who achieved less than 50% of the total Republican primary vote) was the Plurality Winner, he could have been beaten in pairwise contests by at least one other candidate and may have been the Condorcet Loser. The cases confirm the empirical relevance of the theoretical voting paradoxes and the importance of voting procedures.

UR - https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0176268017300782

U2 - 10.1016/j.ejpoleco.2017.10.003

DO - 10.1016/j.ejpoleco.2017.10.003

M3 - Journal article

VL - 55

SP - 29

EP - 35

JO - European Journal of Political Economy

JF - European Journal of Political Economy

SN - 0176-2680

M1 - 3

ER -

ID: 185012131