can someone explain the voting paradox to me?

Do mean Condorcet’s paradox, or Downs paradox? Both are referred to as the voting paradox sometimes.

Condorcet’s paradox is basically that, in a preferential ballot (a vote where voters rank candidates in order, rather than just selecting one) it is possible for there to be no candidate who is preferred by a majority of voters.

Say there are three candidates (A, B and C), and thirty voters. Ten voters put A first, B second, C third. Ten voters put B first, C second and A third. And ten voters put C first, A second and B third. If any candidate wins, it can be argued that two-thirds of voters would have preferred a different candidate. If A wins, the second and third groups of voters would have preferred C. If C wins, the first and second groups would have preferred B. If B wins, the first and third groups would have preferred A.

Downs paradox is essentially saying that, except in the extremely unlikely event that your preferred candidate wins by a single vote, your own participation in an election is inconsequential. Because of this, the costs of voting (the time and effort involved) should persuade a rational, self-interested voter to not vote. The costs will outweigh the benefits, since it is very unlikely that there will be any benefit at all. Thus the fact that people actually do vote in elections, is considered paradoxical by those who regard people as motivated by rational self-interest.

The paradox is avoided if voting is compulsory, or if you consider that the voter benefits from having expressed him or herself, even if theirs is not the pivotal vote.

Condorcet Paradox

https://shorturl.im/axJmI

As a conservative, I support our efforts completely as I did from the start. I find no fault with Obama in that respect. However on the other side, the liberals did vote for the war effort. They hoped to make the war unpopular enough to draw votes from the public. They had the same intel that Clinton and Bush had. Both Clinton and Bush came to the same conclusion about Iraq and once the intel was given to Congress, a majority of them also agreed. They are always and forever in the business of stirring up civil unrest about one issue or another to gain favor with the public. They succeeded to gain favor with the voters using that tactic and will continue to do so unless the public wises up to them. Conservatives generally speaking still support the efforts and our troops, they are just calling out Obama out on yet another broken promise. Liberals have what they want so will keep quiet until another issue arises that they want to shove up our as……

Most liberals opposed the invasion of Iraq, including me. American involvement there is appropriately drawing to an end, but not by abandoning our responsibilities. Some liberals opposed the invasion of Afghanistan; I was not one of them. Obama promised to bolster our efforts there, and he has done just that. Many conservatives are supporting that effort. Some conservatives, who doubtlessly supported that war initially, are now criticizing Obama for not ending it. Those people are trying to twist the President’s words, and are clearly hypocrites.

This Site Might Help You.

RE:

can someone explain the voting paradox to me?

An example would help

thanks