Of the normative questions occasioned by the Paradox of Voting, the most obvious is Condorcet’s: What is the best election rule? It is still the chief question that exercises some of the foremost theorists of voting and social choice. Two more questions are likewise rooted in intellectual history, but this time nineteenth century utilitarian philosophy and economics: Can social choice be based on interpersonally comparable cardinal utility, or preference intensity? And is social welfare its proper object? Another question is what cycles assume and what, if anything, they imply about the rationality of individuals. A final question is whether, despite challenges to classical rationality, there is a fully general way to do what everyone instinctively wishes to do: make best choices from sets that are somehow unproblematically available.