Part of the Politics series 
Electoral systems 


In voting systems, the Minimax Condorcet method (often referred to as "the Minimax method") is one of several Condorcet methods used for tabulating votes and determining a winner when using ranked voting in a singlewinner election. It is sometimes referred to as the Simpson–Kramer method, and the successive reversal method.^{[citation needed]}
Minimax selects as the winner the candidate whose greatest pairwise defeat is smaller than the greatest pairwise defeat of any other candidate: or, put another way, "the only candidate whose support never drops below [N] percent" in any pairwise contest.
YouTube Encyclopedic

1/5Views:167 47918 0201 942 7619 7713 239

Voting Theory: Plurality Method and Condorcet Criterion

The Condorcet Method (Voting System)

Simulating alternate voting systems

DEFINITE INTEGRALS using SIMPSON'S 1/3rd RULE  C PROGRAM [TUTORIAL]

Voting Paradoxes and Combinatorics  Noga Alon
Transcription
 WELCOME TO A LESSON ON THE PLURALITY VOTING METHOD. IN THIS LESSON WE'LL DEFINE THE PLURALITY VOTING METHOD, DETERMINE WINNERS OF ELECTIONS USING THE PLURALITY METHOD, DEFINE THE CONDORCET FAIRNESS CRITERION AND ALSO FIND A CONDORCET WINNER. THE PLURALITY VOTING METHOD IS PROBABLY THE METHOD YOU'RE MOST FAMILIAR WITH, WHERE THE CHOICE WITH THE MOST FIRST PREFERENCE VOTES IS DECLARED THE WINNER. TIES ARE POSSIBLE AND WOULD HAVE TO BE SETTLED THROUGH SOME SORT OF RUN OFF. THIS METHOD IS SOMETIMES MISTAKENLY CALLED THE MAJORITY METHOD, OR MAJORITY RULES, BUT IT IS NOT NECESSARY FOR A CHOICE TO HAVE GAINED A MAJORITY OF VOTES TO WIN, WHERE A MAJORITY IS OVER 50% OF THE VOTES. SO IT IS POSSIBLE FOR A WINNER TO HAVE A PLURALITY WITHOUT HAVING A MAJORITY. LET'S TAKE A LOOK AT A COUPLE OF EXAMPLES. THE SURVEY ASKED TO RANK WHICH WEST COAST STATES PEOPLE PREFER TO LIVE. THE RESULTS ARE BELOW. USE THE PLURALITY METHOD TO SELECT THE WINNER. WE'RE LOOKING AT THE PREFERENCE TABLE HERE, C = CALIFORNIA, O = OREGON, AND W = WASHINGTON. NOTICE THAT WE FIND THE SUM OF THESE VALUES HERE, WE CAN DETERMINE THE TOTAL VOTES IS 300. TO DETERMINE THE PLURALITY WINNER WE'LL DETERMINE HOW MANY FIRST CHOICE VOTES CALIFORNIA RECEIVED, THEN HOW MANY FIRST CHOICE VOTES OREGON RECEIVED, AND THEN HOW MANY FIRST CHOICE VOTES WASHINGTON RECEIVED. WELL, CALIFORNIA RECEIVED 75 + 94 FIRST CHOICE VOTES, WHERE 75 + 94 = 169. OREGON RECEIVED 51 + 12 FIRST CHOICE VOTES, WHICH IS 63 FIRST CHOICE VOTES. AND FINALLY, WASHINGTON RECEIVED 43 + 25 OR 68 FIRST CHOICE VOTES. SO IN THIS CASE, NOTICE THAT CALIFORNIA RECEIVED THE MOST FIRST CHOICE VOTES. AND THEREFORE, CALIFORNIA IS THE PLURALITY WINNER. NOTICE HOW IN THIS CASE CALIFORNIA RECEIVED 169 FIRST CHOICE VOTES OUT OF 300, WHICH IS APPROXIMATELY 56.3%, WHICH IS MORE THAN 50%. AND THEREFORE, CALIFORNIA WOULD ALSO BE THE MAJORITY WINNER. REMEMBER, A WINNER DOES NOT HAVE TO BE A MAJORITY WINNER TO BE THE PLURALITY WINNER. LET'S TAKE A LOOK AT A SECOND EXAMPLE, WHERE HERE A SMALL GROUP OF COLLEGE STUDENTS RANK THE BEST DESTINATION FOR SPRING BREAK WHERE S = SAN DIEGO, L = LAKE HAVASU, AND R = ROCKY POINT. AGAIN, BY FINDING THE SUM OF THESE VALUES HERE WE CAN DETERMINE THERE ARE A TOTAL OF 17 VOTES. NOTICE, SAN DIEGO RECEIVED A TOTAL OF 4 + 4, OR 8, FIRST PLACE VOTES. LAKE HAVASU RECEIVED A TOTAL OF TWO FIRST PLACE VOTES. AND ROCKY POINT RECEIVED A TOTAL OF 5 + 2, OR 7, FIRST PLACE VOTES. AND SINCE SAN DIEGO RECEIVED THE MOST FIRST CHOICE VOTES, OR FIRST PLACE VOTES, SAN DIEGO IS THE WINNER. NOTICE IN THIS CASE, SAN DIEGO RECEIVED A TOTAL OF 8 FIRST PLACE VOTES OUT OF 17, WHICH IS APPROXIMATELY 47.1%. SO NOTICE HOW HERE EVEN THOUGH SAN DIEGO IS NOT THE MAJORITY WINNER, IT STILL IS THE WINNER USING THE PLURALITY METHOD. THIS LEADS US TO A DISCUSSION ABOUT WHAT CAN BE WRONG ABOUT THE PLURALITY VOTING METHOD. IF THERE ARE THREE OR MORE CHOICES IT IS POSSIBLE THAT A CHOICE COULD LOSE, BUT WHEN COMPARED IN A ONE TO ONE COMPARISON IT COULD BE PREFERRED OVER THE PLURALITY WINNER. AND THIS VIOLATES WHAT'S CALLED A FAIRNESS CRITERION WHERE THE FAIRNESS CRITERIA ARE STATEMENTS THAT SEEM LIKE THEY SHOULD BE TRUE IN A FAIR ELECTION. THE FIRST FAIRNESS CRITERION WE'LL CONSIDER IS CALLED THE CONDORCET CRITERION WHERE IF THERE IS A CHOICE, IT IS PREFERRED IN EVERY ONE TO ONE COMPARISON WITH THE OTHER CHOICES. THAT CHOICE SHOULD BE THE WINNER AND WE CALL THIS WINNER THE CONDORCET WINNER OR CONDORCET CANDIDATE. LET'S LOOK AT TWO MORE EXAMPLES. THIS IS THE EXAMPLE THAT WE SAW BEFORE WHERE WE KNOW THE PLURALITY WINNER WAS SAN DIEGO WITH A TOTAL OF 8 VOTES, BUT NOW WE WANT TO FIND THE CONDORCET WINNER. SO TO FIND THE CONDORCET WINNER WE'LL DO A ONE TO ONE COMPARISON WITH OUR THREE OPTIONS. SO WE'LL COMPARE SAN DIEGO VERSUS LAKE HAVASU. WE'LL COMPARE SAN DIEGO VERSUS ROCKY POINT. AND WE'LL COMPARE LAKE HAVASU VERSUS ROCKY POINT. TO DO THE ONE TO ONE COMPARISON WITH SAN DIEGO AND LAKE HAVASU WE WOULD IGNORE ROCKY POINT. SO WE'LL IGNORE ROCKY POINT HERE, HERE, HERE, HERE, AND HERE. REMEMBER, WE HAVE A TOTAL OF 17 VOTES. SO OF THE 17, SAN DIEGO IS PREFERRED OVER LAKE HAVASU 4 + 4 + 5 TIMES, SO THAT WOULD BE 8 + 5 = 13. SO SAN DIEGO WINS OVER LAKE HAVASU 13 TO 4. NOW WE'LL COMPARE SAN DIEGO TO ROCKY POINT SO WE'LL IGNORE LAKE HAVASU. SO NOTICE SAN DIEGO BEATS ROCKY POINT HERE AND HERE, BUT NOTICE HOW ROCKY POINT WINS HERE, HERE, AND HERE. AND THEREFORE, FOR SAN DIEGO VERSUS ROCKY POINT THE VOTE IS 8 TO 9. NOTICE IN THIS ONE TO ONE COMPARISON ROCKY POINT WINS. AND THEN FINALLY, WE WANT TO CONSIDER LAKE HAVASU VERSUS ROCKY POINT. SO NOW WE'LL IGNORE SAN DIEGO. SO LAKE HAVASU'S PREFERRED OVER ROCKY POINT HERE AND HERE AND THEREFORE, LAKE HAVASU VERSUS ROCKY POINT WOULD BE 6 TO 11. NOW, LOOKING AT THESE ONE TO ONE COMPARISONS NOTICE HOW ROCKY POINT BEATS LAKE HAVASU HERE AND ROCKY POINT ALSO BEATS SAN DIEGO HERE. THEREFORE ROCKY POINT ALWAYS WINS IN A ONE TO ONE COMPARISON. AND THEREFORE, ROCKY POINT IS THE CONDORCET WINNER. SO EVEN THOUGH SAN DIEGO WAS THE PLURALITY WINNER, UNDER THE CONDORCET FAIRNESS CRITERION ROCKY POINT SHOULD BE THE WINNER. LET'S TAKE A LOOK AT ONE MORE EXAMPLE. WE WANT TO FIND THE CONDORCET WINNER, OR CONDORCET CANDIDATE, IF THERE IS ONE. SO THE CANDIDATES ARE "A," B, AND C SO WE'LL DO A ONE TO ONE COMPARISON. WE'LL HAVE "A" VERSUS B, "A" VERSUS C, AND B VERSUS C. NOTICE THE PLURALITY WINNER WOULD BE C WITH A TOTAL OF 16 FIRST CHOICE VOTES. SO FOR "A" VERSUS B WE'LL IGNORE C. SO "A" WOULD WIN OVER B HERE AND HERE. SO "A" VERSUS B WOULD BE 31 TO 10. NEXT, FOR "A" VERSUS C WE'LL IGNORE B. NOTICE, "A" WINS ONLY HERE SO "A" VERSUS C WOULD BE 15 TO 26. AND THEN FOR B VERSUS C WE'LL IGNORE "A". NOTICE HOW B WINS HERE AND C WINS HERE AND HERE. SO B VERSUS C WOULD BE 10 TO 31. SO AGAIN, LOOKING AT THESE TWO HERE NOTICE C WINS OVER B AND HERE C ALSO WINS OVER "A" AND THEREFORE CANDIDATE C IS THE CONDORCET WINNER, BUT NOTICE HOW C IS ALSO THE PLURALITY WINNER HERE. I HOPE YOU FOUND THIS HELPFUL.
Description of the method
The Minimax Condorcet method selects the candidate for whom the greatest pairwise score for another candidate against him or she is the least such score among all candidates.
Formal definition
Formally, let denote the pairwise score for against . Then the candidate, selected by minimax (aka the winner) is given by:
Variants of the pairwise score
When it is permitted to rank candidates equally, or to not rank all the candidates, three interpretations of the rule are possible. When voters must rank all the candidates, all three variants are equivalent.
Let be the number of voters ranking X over Y. The variants define the score for candidate X against Y as:
 The number of voters ranking X above Y, but only when this score exceeds the number of voters ranking Y above X. If not, then the score for X against Y is zero. This variant is sometimes called winning votes.
 The number of voters ranking X above Y minus the number of voters ranking Y above X. This variant is called using margins.
 The number of voters ranking X above Y, regardless of whether more voters rank X above Y or vice versa. This variant is sometimes called pairwise opposition.
When one of the first two variants is used, the method can be restated as: "Disregard the weakest pairwise defeat until one candidate is unbeaten." An "unbeaten" candidate possesses a maximum score against him which is zero or negative.
Satisfied and failed criteria
Minimax using winning votes or margins satisfies the Condorcet and the majority criterion, but not the Smith criterion, mutual majority criterion, or Condorcet loser criterion. When winning votes is used, minimax also satisfies the Plurality criterion. Minimax cannot satisfy the independence of clones criterion because clones will have narrow win margins between them; this implies Minimax cannot satisfy local independence of irrelevant alternatives because three clones may form a cycle of narrow defeats as the first, second, and thirdplace winners, and removing the secondplace winner may cause the thirdplace winner to be elected.
When the pairwise opposition variant is used, minimax also does not satisfy the Condorcet criterion. However, when equalranking is permitted, there is never an incentive to put one's firstchoice candidate below another one on one's ranking. It also satisfies the laternoharm criterion, which means that by listing additional, lower preferences in one's ranking, one cannot cause a preferred candidate to lose.
When constrained to the Smith set, as Smith/Minimax, minimax satisfies the Smith criterion and, by implication, the mutual majority, independence of Smithdominated alternatives, and Condorcet loser criterion.
Markus Schulze modified minimax to satisfy several of the criteria above. Compared to Smith/Minimax, Nicolaus Tideman's ranked pairs method additionally satisfies clone independence and local independence of irrelevant alternatives.
Examples
Example with Condorcet winner
Imagine that Tennessee is having an election on the location of its capital. The population of Tennessee is concentrated around its four major cities, which are spread throughout the state. For this example, suppose that the entire electorate lives in these four cities and that everyone wants to live as near to the capital as possible.
The candidates for the capital are:
 Memphis, the state's largest city, with 42% of the voters, but located far from the other cities
 Nashville, with 26% of the voters, near the center of the state
 Knoxville, with 17% of the voters
 Chattanooga, with 15% of the voters
The preferences of the voters would be divided like this:
42% of voters (close to Memphis) 
26% of voters (close to Nashville) 
15% of voters (close to Chattanooga) 
17% of voters (close to Knoxville) 





The results of the pairwise scores would be tabulated as follows:
X  
Memphis  Nashville  Chattanooga  Knoxville  
Y  Memphis  [X] 58% [Y] 42% 
[X] 58% [Y] 42% 
[X] 58% [Y] 42%  
Nashville  [X] 42% [Y] 58% 
[X] 32% [Y] 68% 
[X] 32% [Y] 68%  
Chattanooga  [X] 42% [Y] 58% 
[X] 68% [Y] 32% 
[X] 17% [Y] 83%  
Knoxville  [X] 42% [Y] 58% 
[X] 68% [Y] 32% 
[X] 83% [Y] 17%  
Pairwise election results (wontiedlost):  003  300  201  102  
worst pairwise defeat (winning votes):  58%  0%  68%  83%  
worst pairwise defeat (margins):  16%  −16%  36%  66%  
worst pairwise opposition:  58%  42%  68%  83% 
 [X] indicates voters who preferred the candidate listed in the column caption to the candidate listed in the row caption
 [Y] indicates voters who preferred the candidate listed in the row caption to the candidate listed in the column caption
Result: In all three alternatives Nashville has the lowest value and is elected winner.
Example with Condorcet winner that is not elected winner (for pairwise opposition)
Assume three candidates A, B and C and voters with the following preferences:
4% of voters  47% of voters  43% of voters  6% of voters 

1. A and C  1. A  1. C  1. B 
2. C  2. B  2. A and C  
3. B  3. B  3. A 
The results would be tabulated as follows:
X  
A  B  C  
Y  A  [X] 49% [Y] 51% 
[X] 43% [Y] 47%  
B  [X] 51% [Y] 49% 
[X] 94% [Y] 6%  
C  [X] 47% [Y] 43% 
[X] 6% [Y] 94% 

Pairwise election results (wontiedlost):  200  002  101  
worst pairwise defeat (winning votes):  0%  94%  47%  
worst pairwise defeat (margins):  −2%  88%  4%  
worst pairwise opposition:  49%  94%  47% 
 [X] indicates voters who preferred the candidate listed in the column caption to the candidate listed in the row caption
 [Y] indicates voters who preferred the candidate listed in the row caption to the candidate listed in the column caption
Result: With the alternatives winning votes and margins, the Condorcet winner A is declared Minimax winner. However, using the pairwise opposition alternative, C is declared winner, since less voters strongly oppose him in his worst pairwise score against A than A is opposed by in his worst pairwise score against B.
Example without Condorcet winner
Assume four candidates A, B, C and D. Voters are allowed to not consider some candidates (denoting an n/a in the table), so that their ballots are not taken into account for pairwise scores of that candidates.
30 voters  15 voters  14 voters  6 voters  4 voters  16 voters  14 voters  3 voters 

1. A  1. D  1. D  1. B  1. D  1. C  1. B  1. C 
2. C  2. B  2. B  2. C  2. C  2. A and B  2. C  2. A 
3. B  3. A  3. C  3. A  3. A and B  
4. D  4. C  4. A  4. D  
n/a D  n/a A and D  n/a B and D 
The results would be tabulated as follows:
X  
A  B  C  D  
Y  A  [X] 35 [Y] 30 
[X] 43 [Y] 45 
[X] 33 [Y] 36  
B  [X] 30 [Y] 35 
[X] 50 [Y] 49 
[X] 33 [Y] 36  
C  [X] 45 [Y] 43 
[X] 49 [Y] 50 
[X] 33 [Y] 36  
D  [X] 36 [Y] 33 
[X] 36 [Y] 33 
[X] 36 [Y] 33 

Pairwise election results (wontiedlost):  201  201  201  003  
worst pairwise defeat (winning votes):  35  50  45  36  
worst pairwise defeat (margins):  5  1  2  3  
worst pairwise opposition:  43  50  49  36 
 [X] indicates voters who preferred the candidate listed in the column caption to the candidate listed in the row caption
 [Y] indicates voters who preferred the candidate listed in the row caption to the candidate listed in the column caption
Result: Each of the three alternatives gives another winner:
 the winning votes alternative chooses A as winner, since it has the lowest value of 35 votes for the winner in his biggest defeat;
 the margin alternative chooses B as winner, since it has the lowest difference of votes in his biggest defeat;
 and pairwise opposition chooses the Condorcet loser D as winner, since it has the lowest votes of the biggest opponent in all pairwise scores.
See also
 Minimax – main minimax article
 Wald's maximin model – Wald's maximin model
 Multiwinner voting  contains information on some multiwinner variants of Minimax Condorcet.
References
 Levin, Jonathan, and Barry Nalebuff. 1995. "An Introduction to VoteCounting Schemes." Journal of Economic Perspectives, 9(1): 3–26.
External links
 Description of ranked ballot voting methods: Simpson by Rob LeGrand
 Condorcet Class PHP library supporting multiple Condorcet methods, including the three variants of Minimax method.
 Electowiki: minmax