An extension of Condorcet's paradox by McGarvey (1953) asserts that for every asymmetric relation R on a finite set of candidates there is a strict-preferences voter profile that has the relation R as its strict simple majority relation. We prove that McGarvey's theorem can be extended to arbitrary neutral monotone social welfare functions which can be described by a strong simple game G if the voting power of each individual, measured by the it Shapley-Shubik power index, is sufficiently small. Our proof is based on an extension to another classic result concerning the majority rule. Condorcet studied an election between two candidates in which the voters' choices are random and independent and the probability of a voter choosing the first candidate is p > 1/2. Condorcet's Jury Theorem asserts that if the number of voters tends to infinity then the probability that the first candidate will be elected tends to one. We prove that this assertion extends to a sequence of arbitrary monotone strong simple games if and only if the maximum voting power for all individuals tends to zero.

The paper presents a notion of rationalizing choice functions that violate the “Independence of Irrelevant Alternatives” axiom. A collection of linear orderings is said to provide a rationalization by multiple rationales for a choice function if the choice from any choice set can be rationalized by one of the orderings. We characterize a tight upper bound on the minimal number of orderings that is required to rationalize arbitrary choice functions, and calculate the minimal number for several specific choice procedures.