This articleneeds additional citations forverification. Please helpimprove this article byadding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. Find sources: "Reversal symmetry" – news ·newspapers ·books ·scholar ·JSTOR(November 2007) (Learn how and when to remove this message)

A jointPolitics andEconomics series
Social choice andelectoral systems
Social choice Mechanism design Comparative politics Comparison List (By country)
Single-winner methods Single vote –plurality methods First preference plurality (FPP) Two-round (US:Jungle primary) Partisan primary Instant-runoff UK: Alternative vote (AV) US: Ranked-choice (RCV) Party block voting Plurality block voting Condorcet methods Condorcet-IRV Round-robin voting Minimax Kemeny Schulze Ranked pairs Maximal lottery Positional voting Plurality (el.IRV) Borda count (el.Baldwin,Mdn.Bucklin) Antiplurality (el.Coombs) Cardinal voting Score voting Approval voting Majority judgment STAR voting
Proportional representation Party-list Apportionment Highest averages Largest remainders National remnant Biproportional List type Closed list Open list Panachage List-free PR Localized list Quota-remainder methods Single transferable vote (Hare,Droop) Schulze STV CPO-STV Quota Borda Approval-based committees Thiele's method Phragmen's method Expanding approvals rule Method of equal shares Fractional social choice Direct representation Interactive representation Liquid democracy Fractional approval voting Maximal lottery Random ballot Semi-proportional representation Cumulative SNTV Limited voting
Mixed systems By results of combination Mixed-member majoritarian Mixed-member proportional By mechanism of combination Non-compensatory Parallel (superposition) Coexistence Conditional Fusion (majority bonus) Compensatory Seat linkage system UK:'AMS' NZ:'MMP' Vote linkage system Negative vote transfer Mixed ballot Supermixed systems Dual-member proportional Rural–urban proportional Majority jackpot By ballot type Single vote Double simultaneous vote Dual-vote
Paradoxes and pathologies Spoiler effects Spoiler effect Cloning paradox Frustrated majorities paradox Center squeeze Pathological response Perverse response Best-is-worst paradox No-show paradox Multiple districts paradox Strategic voting Lesser evil voting Exaggeration Truncation Turkey-raising Wasted vote Paradoxes ofmajority rule Tyranny of the majority Discursive dilemma Conflicting majorities paradox
Social and collective choice Impossibility theorems Arrow's theorem Majority impossibility Moulin's impossibility theorem McKelvey–Schofield chaos theorem Gibbard's theorem Positive results Median voter theorem Condorcet's jury theorem May's theorem Condorcet dominance theorems Harsanyi's utilitarian theorem VCG mechanism Quadratic voting
Politics portal Economics portal Mathematics portal
v t e

Thereversal symmetry criterion is avoting system criterion which says that if every voter's opinions on each of the candidates is perfectly reversed (i.e. they rank candidates in order from worst to best), the outcome of the election should be reversed as well, i.e. the first- and last-place finishers should switch places.^[1] In other words, the results of the election should not depend arbitrarily on whether voters rank candidates from best to worst (and then select the best candidate), or whether we ask them to rank candidates from worst to best (and then select the least-bad candidate).

Another, equivalent way to motivate the criterion is to say that a voting system should never elect the worst candidate, according to the method itself (as doing so suggests the method is, in some sense, self-contradictory). The worst candidate can be identified by reversing all ballots (to rank candidates from worst-to-best) and then running the algorithm to find a single worst candidate.^[2]

Situations where the same candidate is elected when all ballots are reversed are sometimes calledbest-is-worst paradoxes, and can occur ininstant-runoff voting andminimax. Methods that satisfy reversal symmetry include theBorda count,ranked pairs,Kemeny–Young, andSchulze. Mostrated voting systems, includingapproval andscore voting, satisfy the criterion as well.

Consider a preferential system where 11 voters express their preferences as:

• 5 voters prefer A then B then C
• 4 voters prefer B then C then A
• 2 voters prefer C then A then B

With the Borda count A would get 23 points (5×3+4×1+2×2), B would get 24 points, and C would get 19 points, so B would be elected. In instant-runoff, C would be eliminated in the first round and A would be elected in the second round by 7 votes to 4.

Now reversing the preferences:

• 5 voters prefer C then B then A
• 4 voters prefer A then C then B
• 2 voters prefer B then A then C

With the Borda count A would get 21 points (5×1+4×3+2×2), B would get 20 points, and C would get 25 points, so this time C would be elected. In instant-runoff, B would be eliminated in the first round and A would as before be elected in the second round, this time by 6 votes to 5.

This example shows that the Minimax method violates the Reversal symmetry criterion. Assume four candidates A, B, C and D with 14 voters with the following preferences:

Since all preferences are strict rankings (no equals are present), all three Minimax methods (winning votes, margins and pairwise opposite) elect the same winners.

Now, the winners are determined for the normal and the reversed order.

The results would be tabulated as follows:

• [X] indicates voters who preferred the candidate listed in the column caption to the candidate listed in the row caption
• [Y] indicates voters who preferred the candidate listed in the row caption to the candidate listed in the column caption

Result: The candidates A, B, and C form a cycle with clear defeats. D benefits from that since its two losses are relatively close and therefore D's biggest defeat is the closest of all candidates. Thus,D is elected Minimax winner.

The results would be tabulated as follows:

Result: The candidates A, B, and C still form a cycle with clear defeats. Therefore D's biggest defeat is the closest of all candidates, andD is elected Minimax winner.

D is the Minimax winner using the normal preference order and also using the ballots with reversed preference orders. Thus, Minimax fails the reversal symmetry criterion.

This example shows that plurality voting violates the Reversal symmetry criterion. Assume three candidates A, B and C and 4 voters with the following preferences:

Note that reversing all the ballots, leads to the same set of ballots, since the reversed preference order of the first voter resembles the preference order of the second, and similarly with the third and fourth.

In the following the Plurality winner is determined. Plurality ballots only contain the single favorite:

Result: The candidates A and B receive 1 vote each, candidate C receives a plurality of 2 votes (50%). Thus,C is elected Plurality winner.

C is the Plurality winner using the normal ballots and also using the reversed ballot. Thus, Plurality fails the reversal symmetry criterion.

Note that every voting system that satisfies the reversal symmetry criterion would have to lead to a tie in this example (as in every example in which the set of reversed ballots is the same as the set of normal ballots).

This example shows STAR violates the reversal symmetry criterion. In a score ballot, reversed score is calculated as the maximum possible score minus the normal score.

Given a 3-candidate election between candidatesA,B, andC:

The results are tabulated below:

Result: In the election, candidatesA andB have the highest scores, and advance to the runoff round.B wins being preferred overA 3 votes to 2.

Reversing the ballots by subtracting each score from 5 (the maximum score in STAR) gives the following:

The results are tabulated below:

Result: In the reversed ballots,B andC have the highest total score, andB wins being preferred toC 3 votes to 2.

• Electoral system criteria

• Articles with short description
• Short description is different from Wikidata
• Articles needing additional references from November 2007
• All articles needing additional references