An extension of May’s Theorem to three alternatives: axiomatizing Minimax voting

Abstract May’s Theorem [K. O. May, Econometrica 20 (1952) 680-684] characterizes majority voting on two alternatives as the unique preferential voting method satisfying several simple axioms. Here we show that by adding some desirable axioms to May’s axioms, we can uniquely determine how to vote on three alternatives (setting aside tiebreaking). In particular, we add two axioms stating that the voting method should mitigate spoiler effects and the so-called strong no show paradox . We prove a theorem stating that any preferential voting method satisfying our enlarged set of axioms, which includes some weak homogeneity and preservation axioms, must choose from among the Minimax winners in all three-alternative elections. When applied to more than three alternatives, our axioms also distinguish Minimax from other known voting methods that coincide with or refine Minimax for three alternatives.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Social Choice and Welfare
Published
2025-06-13
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00355-025-01598-7
Citations
1
Primary Topic
Game Theory and Voting Systems
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
3.13
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

An extension of May’s Theorem to three alternatives: axiomatizing Minimax voting

Eric Pacuit, Wesley H. Holliday
1 citations
Social Choice and Welfare
Game Theory and Voting Systems
3.13
article

An extension of May’s Theorem to three alternatives: axiomatizing Minimax voting

Eric Pacuit, Wesley H. Holliday
article en
1 citations

Abstract

Abstract May’s Theorem [K. O. May, Econometrica 20 (1952) 680-684] characterizes majority voting on two alternatives as the unique preferential voting method satisfying several simple axioms. Here we show that by adding some desirable axioms to May’s axioms, we can uniquely determine how to vote on three alternatives (setting aside tiebreaking). In particular, we add two axioms stating that the voting method should mitigate spoiler effects and the so-called strong no show paradox . We prove a theorem stating that any preferential voting method satisfying our enlarged set of axioms, which includes some weak homogeneity and preservation axioms, must choose from among the Minimax winners in all three-alternative elections. When applied to more than three alternatives, our axioms also distinguish Minimax from other known voting methods that coincide with or refine Minimax for three alternatives.

Social Choice and WelfareVol. 66(2)
University of Maryland, College Park (US), University of California, Berkeley (US)
Openalex Percentile: Top 8%
Game Theory and Voting Systems
3.13
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.

An extension of May’s Theorem to three alternatives: axiomatizing Minimax voting — Eric Pacuit, Wesley H. Holliday · Social Choice and Welfare (2025) | TGRS Research Map | TGRS