# Win, Place, and No!

How the dismal science applies to your life.
Feb. 6 1999 3:30 AM

# Win, Place, and No!

## The only truly fair election is the one with one voter.

Sandra Loosemore, CBS SportsLine's figure skating writer, has a mission. She wants to overturn the sport's new scoring system.

The traditional system came under fire after the Great Flip-Flop of 1997 at the European Championships. In the men's free-skating event, five competitors had skated, and the first three places were held by Alexei Urmanov, Viacheslav Zagorodniuk, and Philippe Candeloro, in that order. The final contestant, Andrejs Vlascenko, placed dead last--but in the process he managed to bump Candeloro up to second place, denying Zagorodniuk a silver medal.

(For Loosemore's explanation of how the old scoring system worked, and how it caused the Great Flip-Flop, click here.)

International Skating Union Chairman Ottavio Cinquanta decreed after the championship that the scoring system must be revised to prevent flip-flops. When the new system was announced in July 1998, Cinquanta rejoiced that the problem was solved, so that henceforth "if you are in front of me, you will remain in front of me."

Loosemore has raised several cogent objections to the new system. First, it is more complicated than the old system. Second, contrary to Cinquanta, it won't stop flip-flops. In fact, Loosemore's computer simulations suggest that it will make flip-flops more common, not less.

What should the ISU do? Economist Kenneth Arrow hacked this problem five decades ago with his "Arrow Impossibility Theorem," which proves that no reasonable scoring system can preclude flip-flops. (The word "reasonable" incorporates the ISU's commitment to basing final outcomes only on the order in which the judges have ranked the contestants rather than on their explicit numerical scores.)

When Arrow was laying the foundations for his future Nobel Prize, he was concerned not with ranking figure skaters but with ranking social priorities. But Professor Michael Stob of Calvin College points out that the problems are identical. Judges may disagree about whether Zagorodniuk is better than Candeloro. Voters may disagree about whether a Star Wars defense system is better than a tax cut. In order to name winners, the ISU needs a scoring system to amalgamate the judges' opinions into a single ranking. In order to take political action, the United States needs a social choice mechanism to amalgamate voters' many preferences into a single list of priorities.

It might appear that the United States can afford more ambiguity than the ISU. Members of Congress can get away with cheerfully endorsing multiple conflicting goals and declaring them all "top priorities," whereas at the end of the day, the ISU must declare who gets the gold, who gets the silver, and who gets the bronze. But the fact is that at the end of the day, political decisions do get made, as surely as skating medalists get chosen. The government either cuts taxes or it doesn't. Although the political process is far more complex than anything the ISU might devise, the decisions it arrives at are just as unambiguous.

Arrow set forth two desiderata for any social choice mechanism. First, unanimity, when it occurs, should be respected. If all the judges rate Zagorodniuk ahead of Candeloro, then Zagorodniuk should come in ahead of Candeloro. If 100 percent of the voters prefer Clinton to Dole, then Dole should not be president. This criterion is the easy one. I doubt that any sport, or any polity, has ever violated it.

Arrow's second dictum is that there should be no flip-flops. If A ranks ahead of B, then the entry of a third candidate, C, should not overturn that ranking. Simple majority voting, for example, notoriously violates the no-flip-flop criterion. It's easy to imagine an election where Clinton is initially ahead of Dole, but a third party entry by, say, Jesse Jackson, pushes Dole ahead of Clinton. This can happen even when Jackson runs a distant third, as long as he takes more votes from Clinton than from Dole. Arrow's goal was to eliminate such anomalies with a more sophisticated voting system.

Jurisprudence

# Scalia’s Liberal Streak

The conservative justice’s most brilliant—and surprisingly progressive—moments on the bench.

Culturebox

# Theo’s Joint and Vanessa’s Whiskey

No sitcom did the “Very Special Episode” as well as The Cosby Show.

Television

# The Other Huxtable Effect

Thirty years ago, The Cosby Show gave us one of TV’s great feminists.

# Why Television Needs a New Cosby Show Right Now

News & Politics
Weigel
Sept. 18 2014 8:20 PM A Clever Attempt at Explaining Away a Vote Against the Farm Bill
Moneybox
Sept. 18 2014 6:02 PM A Chinese Company Just Announced the Biggest IPO in U.S. History
Life
The Slate Quiz
Sept. 18 2014 11:44 PM Play the Slate News Quiz With Jeopardy! superchampion Ken Jennings.
Double X
Doublex
Sept. 18 2014 8:07 PM Crying Rape False rape accusations exist, and they are a serious problem.
Slate Plus
Behind the Scenes
Sept. 18 2014 1:23 PM “It’s Not Every Day That You Can Beat the World Champion” An exclusive interview with chess grandmaster Fabiano Caruana.
Arts
Brow Beat
Sept. 18 2014 4:33 PM The Top 5 Dadsplaining Moments From The Cosby Show
Technology
Future Tense
Sept. 18 2014 6:48 PM By 2100 the World's Population Could Be 11 Billion
Health & Science
Science
Sept. 18 2014 3:35 PM Do People Still Die of Rabies? And how do you know if an animal is rabid?
Sports
Sports Nut
Sept. 18 2014 11:42 AM Grandmaster Clash One of the most amazing feats in chess history just happened, and no one noticed.