# A Quantitative and Qualitative Analysis of the Robustness of (Real-World) Election Winners

arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2208.13760 · HTML: https://mlsanity.com/paper/2208.13760/

## Key facts

- Cited by 4 papers in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026).
- First posted on arXiv 29 Aug 2022.

## Built on by (most cited first, 4 of 4)

- [An evaluation framework for synthetic data generation models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2404.08866/) (2024)
- [Drawing a Map of Elections](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2504.03809/) (2025)
- [Finding Common Ground in a Sea of Alternatives](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2603.16751/) (2026)
- [How Hard is it to Rig a Benchmark? A Social Choice Analysis of Leaderboard Robustness](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2605.23628/) (2026)

## Abstract (arXiv)

Contributing to the toolbox for interpreting election results, we evaluate the robustness of election winners to random noise. We compare the robustness of different voting rules and evaluate the robustness of real-world election winners from the Formula 1 World Championship and some variant of political elections. We find many instances of elections that have very non-robust winners and numerous delicate robustness patterns that cannot be identified using classical and simpler approaches.