At least half of men don’t wash their hands before leaving a public restroom. Literally everything is covered in dick stuff. Source: 30+ years of using public restrooms as a male.
At least half of men don’t wash their hands before leaving a public restroom. Literally everything is covered in dick stuff. Source: 30+ years of using public restrooms as a male.
Yeah, the Condorcet criterion is a lot more restrictive in the space of policies (where you can make incremental changes in any direction) than in elections for a discrete set of candidates. (Which is why they say that in most cases there won’t be one.)
Yeah, so in my understanding of that, doesn’t that mean the winning policy has to appeal more to a voter base than one that appeals to another voter base?
That’s true for any pairwise vote, but not for the entire sequence.
As in the Condorcet paradox, voter preferences are intransitive: voters preferring A to B and B to C doesn’t imply that voters will prefer A to C. But where the Condorcet paradox shows how this can lead to a cyclical subset of candidates where no candidate can beat all other members of the subset, the chaos theorem shows how this can lead to a series of votes that ends absolutely anywhere.
But if it is a paradox, then every proposal that still stands has to have beaten another proposal at least once. Thus I don’t see how it could be one nobody has preferred at the start.
It’s not like Condorcet’s scenario where every candidate has a pairwise election against every other candidate—it assumes a subversive agenda-setter who presents each new proposal as a yes-or-no alternative to the existing status quo (the previously-accepted proposal). Once a policy is rejected, it isn’t re-introduced.