arXiv++ Combinatorics

Condorcet's paradox is a foundational result in social choice theory, showing that no matter which candidate wins an election, a majority of voters may prefer some losing candidate. Worse still, even if the election can choose a committee of $k$ winners, some loser may beat every winner in a majority vote. Recent work showed that this obstruction can be sidestepped by relaxing the majority threshold. For all $\varepsilon > 0$, any election can select a committee of $O(1/\varepsilon^2)$ winners such that no loser is preferred to every winner by $\frac12 + \varepsilon$ fraction of voters. We present a simple construction, found by GPT-5.6 Sol Ultra, which proves that this result is tight up to a constant factor.

We give a brief exposition of a result of Song, Nguyen, and Lin (2026) that every election (with ranked preferences) has a Condorcet winning set of at most five candidates.

We study the committee selection problem in the canonical impartial culture model with a large number of voters and an even larger candidate set. Here, each voter independently reports a uniformly random preference order over the candidates. For a fixed committee size $k$, we ask when a committee can collectively beat every candidate outside the committee by a prescribed majority level $α$. We focus on two natural notions of collective dominance, $α$-winning and $α$-dominating sets, and we identify sharp threshold phenomena for both of them using probabilistic methods, duality arguments, and rounding techniques. We first consider $α$-winning sets. A set $S$ of $k$ candidates is $α$-winning if, for every outside candidate $a \notin S$, at least an $α$-fraction of voters rank some member of $S$ above $a$. We show a sharp threshold at \[ α_{\mathrm{win}}^\star = 1 - \frac{1}{k}. \] Specifically, an $α$-winning set of size $k$ exists with high probability when $α< α_{\mathrm{win}}^\star$, and is unlikely to exist when $α> α_{\mathrm{win}}^\star$. We then study the stronger notion of $α$-dominating sets. A set $S$ of $k$ candidates is $α$-dominating if, for every outside candidate $a \notin S$, there exists a single committee member $b \in S$ such that at least an $α$-fraction of voters prefer $b$ to $a$. Here we establish an analogous sharp threshold at \[ α_{\mathrm{dom}}^\star = \frac{1}{2} - \frac{1}{2k}. \] As a corollary, our analysis yields an impossibility result for $α$-dominating sets: for every $k$ and every $α> α_{\mathrm{dom}}^\star = 1 / 2 - 1 / (2k)$, there exist preference profiles that admit no $α$-dominating set of size $k$. This corollary improves the best previously known bounds for all $k \geq 2$.

Condorcet's paradox is a fundamental result in social choice theory which states that there exist elections in which, no matter which candidate wins, a majority of voters prefer a different candidate. In fact, even if we can select any $k$ winners, there still may exist another candidate that would beat each of the winners in a majority vote. That is, elections may require arbitrarily large dominating sets. We show that approximately dominating sets of constant size always exist. In particular, for every $\varepsilon > 0$, every election (irrespective of the number of voters or candidates) can select $O(\frac{1}{\varepsilon ^2})$ winners such that no other candidate beats each of the winners by a margin of more than $\varepsilon$ fraction of voters. Our proof uses a simple probabilistic construction using samples from a maximal lottery, a well-studied distribution over candidates derived from the Nash equilibrium of a two-player game. In stark contrast to general approximate equilibria, which may require support logarithmic in the number of pure strategies, we show that maximal lotteries can be approximated with constant support size. These approximate maximal lotteries may be of independent interest.

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? 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 $\fracα{1 - \ln α} \geq \frac{2}{k + 1}$, 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 $k \geq 2$. 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.