3 ms·

The wikipedia page includes a cite of such an empirical analysis: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Condorcet_paradox#Empirical_studies https://en.m.wikipedia.org

• theptip 7y ago
  Thanks! I'm just going to quote here because the footnote was interesting: > A summary of 37 individual studies, covering a total of 265 real-world elections, large and small, found 25 instances of a Condorcet paradox, for a total likelihood of 9.4%[14]:325 (and this may be a high estimate, since cases of the paradox are more likely to be reported on than cases without).[13]:47 > 13: ""most election results do not correspond to anything like any of DC, IC, IAC or MC ... empirical studies ... indicate that some of the most common paradoxes are relatively unlikely to be observed in actual elections. ... it is easily concluded that Condorcet’s Paradox should very rarely be observed in any real elections on a small number of candidates with large electorates, as long as voters’ preferences reflect any reasonable degree of group mutual coherence" I think I have to file this one under "it's complicated, must dig more".