Six Candidates Suffice to Win a Voter Majority
Moses Charikar, Alexandra Lassota, Prasanna Ramakrishnan, Adrian Vetta, Kangning Wang
Abstract
A cornerstone of social choice theory is Condorcet’s paradox which says that in an election where n voters rank m candidates it is possible that, no matter which candidate is declared the winner, a majority of voters would have preferred an alternative candidate. Instead, can we always choose a small committee of winning candidates that is preferred to any alternative candidate by a majority of voters?<br/>Elkind, Lang, and Saffidine raised this question and called such a committee a Condorcet winning set. They showed that winning sets of size 2 may not exist, but sets of size logarithmic in the number of candidates always do. In this work, we show that Condorcet winning sets of size 6 always exist, regardless of the number of candidates or the number of voters. More generally, we show that if α/1 − lnα ≥ 2/k + 1, then there always exists a committee of size k such that less than an α fraction of the voters prefer an alternate candidate. These are the first nontrivial positive results that apply for all k ≥ 2.<br/>Our proof uses the probabilistic method and the minimax theorem, inspired by recent work on approximately stable committee selection. We construct a distribution over committees that performs sufficiently well (when compared against any candidate on any small subset of the voters) so that this distribution must contain a committee with the desired property in its support.
Ask about this paper
Your agent reads all of it.
Lune indexed this paper to the last equation, along with the top-tier papers that cite it. Ask a question and the answer quotes them.
Your agent calls
Luneget_paper_fulltext
Free to start. No credit card required.
Terminal
Install the CLIlune papers fulltext 0f41dce1-f4ed-4cf7-89f1-2cdd95d50816Cited by top-tier papers8
- A Dense Neighborhood Lemma: Applications of Partial Concept Classes to Domination and Chromatic NumberRomain Bourneuf, Pierre Charbit, Stéphan ThomasséFOCS 2025 · 13 citations
- Proportional Representation in Practice: Quantifying Proportionality in Ordinal ElectionsTuva Bardal, Markus Brill, David McCune, Jannik PetersAAAI 2025 · 8 citations
- Exclusion Zones of Instant Runoff VotingKiran Tomlinson, Johan Ugander, Jon M. KleinbergAAAI 2026 · 2 citations
- Pluralistic LeaderboardsNika Haghtalab, Ariel Procaccia, Han Shao, Serena Wang et al.ICML 2026
- A Few Good ChoicesHaoyu Song, Thành Nguyen, Young-San LinSODA 2026
Builds on2
Related papers
- Approximately Dominating Sets in ElectionsMoses Charikar, Prasanna Ramakrishnan, Kangning WangSODA 2026
- Market-Based Explanations of Collective DecisionsDominik Peters, Grzegorz Pierczynski, Nisarg Shah, Piotr SkowronAAAI 2021 · 36 citations
- On the Edge of Core (Non-)Emptiness: An Automated Reasoning Approach to Approval-Based Multi-Winner VotingRatip Emin Berker, Emanuel Tewolde, Vincent Conitzer, Mingyu Guo et al.AAAI 2026 · 4 citations
- Preserving Condorcet Winners under Strategic ManipulationSirin Botan, Ulle EndrissAAAI 2021 · 2 citations
- Strategyproofness and Proportionality in Party-Approval Multiwinner ElectionsThéo Delemazure, Tom Demeulemeester, Manuel Eberl, Jonas Israel et al.AAAI 2023 · 13 citations
