The Condorcet Paradox and Brexit Tensions
Ever since the United Kingdom’s “Brexit” referendum in 2016, many economists and politicians have expressed concern about the economic fallout that would result from leaving the European Union (EU). In fact, with numerous protests and public outcry it would seems that the tide has turned against leaving the EU. Many have suggested that UK citizens who voted in favor of Brexit did not accurately weigh the economic costs of leaving the EU when voting back in 2016. In other words, these citizens voted based on unrealistic expectations of what a Brexit deal would bring to the country. This elicits the question: if another referendum were ordered that pit Theresa May’s negotiated deal (replete with its economic costs) against the choice to remain in the EU, would the majority still vote in favor of Brexit?
With Theresa May’s negotiations occurring in the past few weeks, I found Chris Giles article, “Logic explains why the ‘will of the people’ remains elusive,” particularly interesting because it applies the famous Condorcet paradox to the issue that seems to be engulfing the UK.
In particular, Gile suggests that the reason the people’s sentiment around Brexit seems to have shifted is that they were previously asked to vote between two options: the status quo (remain in the EU) and something that many perceived as better (an ideal Brexit). Now that even Theresa May has admitted that her negotiated deal will come with economic costs, there’s growing opposition to the idea of Brexit.
Much like our discussion of voting methods in class, Gile states that, to ensure that May is acting according to the “will of the people,” there would need to be a “Condorcet-style” vote, in which each feasible option is paired (negotiated deal vs. remain, negotiated deal vs. no deal, no deal vs. remain).
Using Giles idea, citizens could rank their preferences such that whichever option has a majority represents the true “will of the people.” However, as many people have pointed out, the results may require a method to tiebreak if there is no clear winner.
This article clearly provided a real-world example of how difficult it is to design a voting system that accurately depicts the opinion of the voters, especially when the voters have a distorted or idealistic perception of one of the choices presented to them.