The (In)Vulnerability of 20 Voting Procedures to the No-Show Paradox in a Restricted Domain

  • Dan S. Felsenthal
  • Hannu NurmiEmail author
Part of the SpringerBriefs in Economics book series (BRIEFSECONOMICS)


The No-Show paradox occurs whenever a group of identically-minded voters is better off abstaining than by voting according to its preferences. Moulin’s (Journal of Economic Theory 45:53–64, 1988) result states that if one wants to exclude the possibility of the No-Show paradox, one has to resort to procedures that do not necessarily elect the Condorcet winner when one exists. This paper examines 10 Condorcet-consistent and 10 Condorcet-non-consistent procedures in a restricted domain, viz., one where there exists a Condorcet winner who is elected in the original profile and the profile is subsequently modified by removing a group of voters with identical preferences. The question asked is whether the No-Show paradox can occur in these settings. It is found that only 2 of the 10 Condorcet-consistent procedures investigated (Minimax and Schwartz’s procedure) are invulnerable to the No-Show paradox, whereas only 3 of the 10 non-Condorcet-consistent ranked procedures investigated (Coombs’s, the Negative Plurality Elimination Rule, and the Majority Judgment procedures) are vulnerable to this paradox in the restricted domain. In other words, for a No-Show paradox to occur when using Condorcet-consistent procedures it is not, in general, necessary that a top Condorcet cycle exists in the original profile, while for this paradox to occur when using (ranked) non-Condorcet-consistent procedures it is, almost always, necessary that the original profile has a top cycle.


Condorcet-consistency Domain restrictions No-Show paradox Voting paradoxes Voting procedures 


  1. Arrow, K. J. (1963). Social choice and individual values (2nd ed.). New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  2. Brandt, F., Geist, C., & Peters, D. (2017). Optimal bounds for the no show paradox via SAT solving. Mathematical Social Sciences, 90, 18–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Brandt, F., Hofbauer, J., & Strobel, M. (2018). Exploring the no-show paradox for Condorcet extensions using Ehrhart theory and computer simulations. In Proceedings of the 7th International Workshop on Computational Social Choice (COMSOC), Troy, NY, USA, June 25–27, 2018.Google Scholar
  4. Felsenthal, D. S. (2012). Review of paradoxes afflicting procedures for electing a single candidate. In D. S. Felsenthal & M. Machover (Eds.), Electoral systems: Paradoxes, assumptions, and procedures (pp. 19–91). Heidelberg: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Felsenthal, D. S., & Nurmi, H. (2017). Monotonicity failures afflicting procedures for electing a single candidate. Cham, Switzerland: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Felsenthal, D. S., & Nurmi, H. (2018). The no-show paradox under a restricted domain. Homo Oeconomicus.
  7. Fishburn, P. C., & Brams, S. J. (1983). Paradoxes of preferential voting. Mathematics Magazine, 56, 207–214.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Gehrlein, W. V. (1983). Condorcet’s paradox. Theory and Decision, 15, 161–197.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Gehrlein, W. V., & Lepelley, D. (2011). Voting paradoxes and group coherence: The Condorcet efficiency of voting rules. Berlin: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Gehrlein, W. V., & Lepelley, D. (2017). Elections, voting rules and paradoxical outcomes. Berlin: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Moulin, H. (1988). Condorcet’s principle implies the no show paradox. Journal of Economic Theory, 45, 53–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Nurmi, H. (2012). On the relevance of theoretical results to voting system choice. In D. S. Felsenthal & M. Machover (Eds.), Electoral systems: Paradoxes, assumptions, and procedures (pp. 255–274). Heidelberg: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Pérez, J. (1995). Incidence of no show paradoxes in Condorcet choice functions. Investigaciones Economicas, XIX, 139–154.Google Scholar
  14. Pérez, J. (2001). The strong no show paradoxes are a common flaw in Condorcet voting correspondences. Social Choice and Welfare, 18, 601–616.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Philosophy, Contemporary History and Political ScienceUniversity of TurkuTurkuFinland

Personalised recommendations