The typical paradigm in voting theory involves $n$ voters and $m$ candidates. Every voter assigns a permutation of the candidates and a key problem is to aggregate the voting result. A popular method is based on the Condorcet criterion where the winner is the candidate who wins every other candidate by pairwise majority. The main disadvantage of this approach, known as the Condorcet paradox, is that such a winner does not necessarily exist since the criterion does not admit transitivity. This paradox is mathematically likely if voters assign rankings uniformly at random, however real life scenarios are not likely to encounter it. This paper attempts to improve the intuition regarding this gap of voting by studying a special case of global intransitivity between all candidates.