Analyzing Politics Rationality, Behavior, and Institutions Kenneth A. Shepsle HARVARD UNIVERSITY Mark S. Bonchek HARVARD UNIVERSITY Det W-W- Norton & Company New York London48. Analyzing Politics SUMMARY We've wandered a bit far afield, but we hope the reader has been sensitized to the fact that, even when individuals hon- estly reveal their preferences, it is nevertheless entirely pos- sible for a group's preferences to be “badly behaved” (read: intransitive) in comparison to those of the individuals that comprise it, This is an instance of what political philosophers Brian Barry and Russell Hardin call “rational man and irra tional society.” As a consequence, what is best for the group, or even what a majority thinks is best for the group, is not at all evident. Even more important, the precise institutional Procedures by which the group determines what it shall do are absolutely critical in making that choice. In the next several chapters we make these matters, and more besides, a bit more precise. In Chapter 4 we will focus on the method of majority rule and the problem of group pref- erence intransitivity. In Chapter 5 we will continue on this theme by investigating the method of majority rule from the Perspective of the spatial model of group choice. Chapter 6 turns attention to the issue of manipulation, in terms of both the misrepresentation of preferences and agenda strategems, Finally, in Chapter 7 we take up the theme of alternative ways for groups to make choices. " Rationat Man and Irrational Society? (Beverly Hills, Calif: Sage, 1982) A Group Choice and Majority Rule In the previous chapter we introduced three subjects, though only in the most casual of fashions: cycling majority prefer- ences, manipulation of agendas and ofthe way preferences are feveried, and elterative voting methods for making group Choices. In the ner several chaptors we take these sbjects up one at a time and in considerably more detail. By the end oar lca tour, we hg he render wil ave cae Save (if not admire) the exertne politicians must e ware imorder tomaster the ecane procedural tals of gop choice. CycLicaL MAJORITIES Condorcet’s Paradox jonal individuals We saw in the last chapter that a group of rati can collectively produce irrational results. Even though each individual in the group has preferences that are consistent (complete and transitive), this need not be true of the group’s preferences, This puzzle has come to be known as Condor cet's paradox, named after the eminent scientist, philosopher, and mathematician of late eighteenth-century France who 49Analyzing Politics Dispay 4.1 - CYCLICAL MAJORITY PREFERENCES 1 2 3 @ 6 e | > e @ © b (rediscovered it.’ Although not actually a paradox in the strict logical sense, the disjuncture between group preferences and the preferences of individuals always seems to surprise and puzzle students when they first encounter it. Its general for- mat is given in Display 4.1, where a group G = {1, 2, 3} must choose by majority rule from among the three alternatives, (a, 6, el, which could be political candidates, public policies, or places to go in Boston on a sunny spring afternoon. A majority, (1,3), prefers a to 6; another majority, (1,2), prefers b to ¢; but (contrary to transitivity) still another majority, (2,3), prefers ¢ to a, For members of a group with these preferences, majority rule produces alternatives that are said to eycle. This raises both a normative and a positive question—what should the group G do? and what will the group G do? In more general contexts, in which G is a legislature, a town meeting, or indoed possibly an entire electorate or society, these questions take on a broad significance. However, before we get up a head of steam on “broadly significant” questions, and with all due respect to Monsieur Condoreet, a prior question naturally arises: just how impor- tant is this puzzle of group intransitivity? Is it merely an ar- don. Only recently it has come to lxht that. in fact. he had rediscovered Group Choice and Majority Rule DispLay 4.2 ALTERNATIVE PREFERENCE ORDERINGS OF THREE ALTERNATIVES @ & & @ & & @ & @® AH a1 ay as aa bc 6 aba ba b © be aca b abe e bc a b a ec 6b a b aw ab cane logical possibility, a trick foisted upon the unknowing student by professors, philosophers, and textbook writers? Or is ita profound discovery, the stuff from which important in- sights about political philosophy and social life are made? In our opinion, the answer lies much closer to the latter. We sneak up on the general issues raised in the preceding paragraph by thinking first about the likelihood of Condorcet’s paradox in the simplest of all settings, namely the three in: dividuals and three alternatives given in Display 4.1. Any one individual may rank order the three alternatives in thirteen different ways (see Display 4.2). Preference orderings (1) through @) involve no indifference and are said to be strong, Orderings (7) through (12) involve some indifference, while (18) represents total indifference; these latter orderings are weak. Each member of the group thus may adopt any one of thirteen orderings, so that there are 13 x 13 x 13, or 2197, combinations of three individuals with preferences over three alternatives, That is, there are 2197 different “societies.” To keep things simpler still, we will focus on the 6 x 6 x 6, or 216, societies of three persons with strong preferences (preference ordering 1 through 6 in Display 4.2). We now determine how many of these societies are afilicted with Condoreot's paradox. Notice in Display 4.1 that the cyclical group preferences are produced by a situation in which each alternative is ranked first by exactly one person, second by exactly one per-