Different voting paradoxes identified by social choice theorists have rarely been documented in real-world elections. The collected data from the opinion polls in the 2017 Iranian presidential election provides substantial empirical evidence indicating that during the electoral campaigns, strong Borda paradox (the Condorcet loser wins plurality.) and weak Borda paradox (An alternative that is not the Condorcet winner wins plurality.) have occurred. At the same time, there was no evidence of a Condorcet paradox, i.e., a cycle among the top three candidates. The results support the empirical relevance of theoretical paradoxes in social choice and a call for the importance of voting procedures.

在现实世界的选举中，很少有文献记载社会选择理论家确定的不同投票悖论。从2017年伊朗总统大选民意测验中收集的数据提供了大量的经验证据，表明在选举期间，强大的博达悖论（Condorcet失败者获胜）和疲弱的博达悖论（不是Condorcet获胜者获胜的替代方案） 。）发生了。同时，没有证据显示“孔多塞悖论”，即前三名候选人之间存在一个周期。结果支持理论悖论在社会选择中的经验相关性，并呼吁表决程序的重要性。