Condorcet paradox
E278103
The Condorcet paradox is a voting theory phenomenon where collective preferences can become cyclic and inconsistent, even when individual voters’ preferences are perfectly rational and transitive.
All labels observed (3)
| Label | Occurrences |
|---|---|
| Condorcet paradox canonical | 2 |
| Condorcet’s paradox | 1 |
| Paradoxes in social choice | 1 |
How this entity was disambiguated
This entity first appeared as the object of triple T2552023 — resolving that mention is where its identity was fixed. The disambiguator weighed these candidate entities and picked the highlighted one (or “None”, minting a new entity). This is how homonymy is resolved: the same surface form can point to different entities.
NED1
Entity disambiguation (via context triple)
gpt-5-mini-2025-08-07
Target entity: Condorcet paradox Context triple: [Marquis de Condorcet, knownFor, Condorcet paradox]
-
A.
Arrow’s impossibility theorem
Arrow’s impossibility theorem is a foundational result in social choice theory showing that no voting system can convert individual preferences into a collective ranking while simultaneously satisfying a set of seemingly reasonable fairness criteria.
-
B.
Arrow paradox
The Arrow paradox is an ancient philosophical argument that challenges the coherence of motion by claiming that a flying arrow must be motionless at every instant of its flight.
-
C.
Borda count
The Borda count is a ranked voting method in which voters order candidates and points are assigned based on position in each ranking, with the candidate having the highest total score winning.
-
D.
Collective Choice and Social Welfare
Collective Choice and Social Welfare is a foundational work in social choice theory that rigorously examines how individual preferences can be aggregated into collective decisions while addressing issues of welfare, justice, and fairness.
-
E.
concurrent majority theory
Concurrent majority theory is a political doctrine that holds that major decisions in a diverse society should require the consent of all significant interest groups or regions, effectively giving each a veto to protect minority interests against a simple numerical majority.
- F. None of above. chosen
- G. Unsure - the case is ambiguous/there is not enough information to decide.
NED2
Entity disambiguation (via description)
gpt-5-mini-2025-08-07
Target entity: Condorcet paradox Target entity description: The Condorcet paradox is a voting theory phenomenon where collective preferences can become cyclic and inconsistent, even when individual voters’ preferences are perfectly rational and transitive.
-
A.
Arrow’s impossibility theorem
Arrow’s impossibility theorem is a foundational result in social choice theory showing that no voting system can convert individual preferences into a collective ranking while simultaneously satisfying a set of seemingly reasonable fairness criteria.
-
B.
Arrow paradox
The Arrow paradox is an ancient philosophical argument that challenges the coherence of motion by claiming that a flying arrow must be motionless at every instant of its flight.
-
C.
Borda count
The Borda count is a ranked voting method in which voters order candidates and points are assigned based on position in each ranking, with the candidate having the highest total score winning.
-
D.
Collective Choice and Social Welfare
Collective Choice and Social Welfare is a foundational work in social choice theory that rigorously examines how individual preferences can be aggregated into collective decisions while addressing issues of welfare, justice, and fairness.
-
E.
concurrent majority theory
Concurrent majority theory is a political doctrine that holds that major decisions in a diverse society should require the consent of all significant interest groups or regions, effectively giving each a veto to protect minority interests against a simple numerical majority.
- F. None of above. chosen
Statements (41)
| Predicate | Object |
|---|---|
| instanceOf |
social choice theory concept
ⓘ
voting paradox ⓘ |
| assumes | individual preferences are complete and transitive ⓘ |
| category |
Condorcet paradox
self-linksurface differs
ⓘ
surface form:
Paradoxes in social choice
Voting theory paradoxes ⓘ |
| contrastsWith | transitive social preference orderings ⓘ |
| describes |
cyclic collective preferences
ⓘ
intransitive social preference orderings ⓘ majority preference cycles ⓘ |
| exampleOf |
collective choice paradox
ⓘ
preference aggregation paradox ⓘ |
| field |
social choice theory
ⓘ
voting theory ⓘ |
| formalizedBy | pairwise majority relation ⓘ |
| illustrates |
difficulty of achieving consistent social choices
ⓘ
limitations of simple majority rule ⓘ |
| implies |
collective preferences can be intransitive
ⓘ
majority rule can be inconsistent ⓘ social preference cycles can arise from transitive individual preferences ⓘ |
| involves |
pairwise majority voting
ⓘ
rational individual preferences ⓘ transitive individual preference orderings ⓘ |
| motivated |
development of alternative voting systems
ⓘ
research on strategy-proof voting rules ⓘ |
| namedAfter | Marquis de Condorcet ⓘ |
| occursWhen |
at least three alternatives are considered
ⓘ
pairwise majority preferences form a cycle ⓘ |
| relatedTo |
Arrow’s impossibility theorem
ⓘ
surface form:
Arrow's impossibility theorem
Condorcet winner ⓘ majority rule ⓘ preference aggregation ⓘ social welfare function ⓘ voting cycles ⓘ |
| shows |
aggregation of preferences can violate transitivity
ⓘ
collective rationality can fail ⓘ majority rule may fail to produce a Condorcet winner ⓘ |
| typicalExample | A is preferred to B, B is preferred to C, and C is preferred to A by majority ⓘ |
| usedIn |
analysis of voting rules
ⓘ
design of electoral systems ⓘ political science ⓘ theoretical economics ⓘ |
How these facts were elicited
The pipeline generated the facts above by prompting gpt-5.1 with this entity's name + description and the instruction below.
Instruction
You are a knowledge base construction expert. Given a subject entity and a description of it, return factual statements that you know for the subject as a JSON list of dictionaries(triples), where keys must be "subject", "predicate" and "object". The number of facts may be very high, between 25 to 50 or more, for very popular subjects. For less popular subjects, the number of facts can be very low, like 5 or 10. # Requirements - If you don't know the subject at all, return an empty list. - If the subject is not a named entity, return an empty list. - Include at least one triple where predicate is "instanceOf". - Do not get too wordy. - Separate several objects into multiple triples with one object.
Input
Subject: Condorcet paradox Description of subject: The Condorcet paradox is a voting theory phenomenon where collective preferences can become cyclic and inconsistent, even when individual voters’ preferences are perfectly rational and transitive.
Referenced by (4)
Full triples — surface form annotated when it differs from this entity's canonical label.
this entity surface form:
Paradoxes in social choice
Essai sur l’application de l’analyse à la probabilité des décisions rendues à la pluralité des voix
→
relatedWork
→
Condorcet paradox
ⓘ
this entity surface form:
Condorcet’s paradox