The Condorcet paradoxes and their solution

Introduction: the article analyzes the Condorcet paradoxes and considers the ways of their possible solution. Purpose: to identify the fairest electoral system for elections in single- and multi-member electoral districts. Methods: general scientific (dialectic, analysis, synthesis, ab-stracting, specification) along with specific scientific (formal-legal, comparative law, technical-legal) research methods were used. Results: most of current electoral systems do not meet the Condorcet criterion. The absolute majority and plurality electoral systems based on categorical voting can in some cases lead to unreasonable voting results. Most preferential systems do not meet this criterion either. There are several techniques able to resolve the first Condorcet para-dox positively, among which the Shulze, Tideman, Copeland, and Kemeny-Young methods are worth mentioning. Some scientists find Marcus Shulze’s algorithm beneficial compared to the others. Many countries use this method for intraparty voting and also e-voting on the Internet (e. g., curators of the Wikipedia and some other projects are elected in this way). This approach, however, is unable to resolve the Condorcet paradoxes entirely; moreover, it gives rise to some other ones. Unfortunately, nowadays in Russia preferential systems cannot be applied due to some peculiarities of the electorate’s mentality, procedures for vote counting and determination of the election results. Conclusions: the Condorcet paradoxes do not appear in the countries with true two-party or pseudo-two-party systems. At presidential elections such states successfully practice the two-round majoritarian system with the absolute majority. On the contrary, in true multi-party states the use of preferential systems (the Shulze method, etc.) is rather advantageous.