I’d written about de Condorcet’s paradox, and how it’s impossible to craft a fair election for more than two candidates, but I notice that many times you may think you’re in de Condorcet’s paradox you are not, because most life choices are not one-time elections. Take college. It’s often quipped that your aim in college is to get good grades, good friends, and sleep; pick any two. The idea is you can’t have all three (If you want good grades and friends, you’ll get no sleep; If you want good friends and sleep, you’ll get bad grades, etc. It seems like a de Condorcet paradox, but it isn’t. You can do what most college students pick two, do that for a while, and switch. You’ll get some of each, plus learn something.

The measure of disfunctionality of a situation is called the Sparely measure. Here’s the man, Lloyd Shapely, Nobelist money expert. He looks like a refugee. Why?

A similar mistake concerns Israel. David Ben-Gurion, claimed Israel had the following three choices: they could be a nation of Jews living in the land of Israel, but not democratic. They could be a democratic nation in the land of Israel, but not Jewish; or they could be Jewish and democratic, but not (for the most part) in Israel. It sounds de Condorcet, especially with Israel’s political parties pushing different pairs of these options, but the nation as a whole can solve the problem by switching  parties and taking a bit of all three. Some Jews in Israel, a state that is sort-of Jewish, and a nation that is quite (but not totally) democratic. It’s a balance, that’s better than any pure solution. It’s like America’s approach to racial or racist issues. The nations surrounding Israel take purer solutions to their doom.

What differentiates a false de Condorcet with a true one, is the ability to reverse one’s choice in the reasonably close future, or the ability to take middle positions. In the current election, a true de Condorcet appears in the choice of president. There is no middle position (a half-Hillary, half Trump) and once chosen, the person will be in office for four years,  virtually for ever. When it comes to country direction, however, there is room for middle-ground, and room for fairly sudden position change, especially when congress is in session.

As a final example, the people of a country (vaguely like the US) might decide they want wealth/productivity, equal distribution of wealth and personal freedom. They then look at their presidential candidates and find that one (Trump?) pushes for wealth and productivity with a reasonably open state and un-equal distribution of wealth. Another (Clinton?) pushes for wealth and equal distributed, but you fear she may be an authoritarian, and you find one (Sanders?) pushing for freedom and an equal distribution of wealth but fear that might lead to poverty. If the president had total power, you’d have a serious problem, but there is a balance of power in the US. As things currently stand, we are likely to choose as president, either Trump or Clinton, and we will rely on congress to help the poor and prevent a police state. Without the balance of power that congress provides, we might have what England has had a sharp divide between left and right.; a Hobson’s choice between inequality and poverty.

Robert E. Buxbaum, September 22, 2015. Balance of power is good.