Subscribe to the gold package and get unlimited access to Shamra Academy
Register a new userComplexity of Manipulation, Bribery, and Campaign Management in Bucklin and Fallback Voting
130
0
0.0
(
0
)
Added by
Joerg Rothe
Publication date
2013
fields
Informatics Engineering
and research's language is
English
Ask ChatGPT about the research
No Arabic abstract
A central theme in computational social choice is to study the extent to which voting systems computationally resist manipulative attacks seeking to influence the outcome of elections, such as manipulation (i.e., strategic voting), control, and bribery. Bucklin and fallback voting are among the voting systems with the broadest resistance (i.e., NP-hardness) to control attacks. However, only little is known about their behavior regarding manipulation and bribery attacks. We comprehensively investigate the computational resistance of Bucklin and fallback voting for many of the common manipulation and bribery scenarios; we also complement our discussion by considering several campaign management problems for Bucklin and fallback.
rate research
Read More
Walsh [Wal10, Wal09], Davies et al. [DKNW10, DKNW11], and Narodytska et al. [NWX11] studied various voting systems empirically and showed that they can often be manipulated effectively, despite their manipulation problems being NP-hard. Such an experimental approach is sorely missing for NP-hard control problems, where control refers to attempts to tamper with the outcome of elections by adding/deleting/partitioning either voters or candidates. We experimentally tackle NP-hard control problems for Bucklin and fallback voting. Among natural voting systems with efficient winner determination, fallback voting is currently known to display the broadest resistance to control in terms of NP-hardness, and Bucklin voting has been shown to behave almost as well in terms of control resistance [ER10, EPR11, EFPR11]. We also investigate control resistance experimentally for plurality voting, one of the first voting systems analyzed with respect to electoral control [BTT92, HHR07]. Our findings indicate that NP-hard control problems can often be solved effectively in practice. Moreover, our experiments allow a more fine-grained analysis and comparison-across various control scenarios, vote distribution models, and voting systems-than merely stating NP-hardness for all these control problems.
Electoral control models ways of changing the outcome of an election via such actions as adding/deleting/partitioning either candidates or voters. To protect elections from such control attempts, computational complexity has been investigated and the corresponding NP-hardness results are termed resistance. It has been a long-running project of research in this area to classify the major voting systems in terms of their resistance properties. We show that fallback voting, an election system proposed by Brams and Sanver (2009) to combine Bucklin with approval voting, is resistant to each of the common types of control except to destructive control by either adding or deleting voters. Thus fallback voting displays the broadest control resistance currently known to hold among natural election systems with a polynomial-time winner problem. We also study the control complexity of Bucklin voting and show that it performs at least almost as well as fallback voting in terms of control resistance. As Bucklin voting is a special case of fallback voting, each resistance shown for Bucklin voting strengthens the corresponding resistance for fallback voting. Such worst-case complexity analysis is at best an indication of security against control attempts, rather than a proof. In practice, the difficulty of control will depend on the structure of typical instances. We investigate the parameterized control complexity of Bucklin and fallback voting, according to several parameters that are often likely to be small for typical instances. Our results, though still in the worst-case complexity model, can be interpreted as significant strengthenings of the resistance demonstrations based on NP-hardness.
Prior work on the complexity of bribery assumes that the bribery happens simultaneously, and that the briber has full knowledge of all voters votes. But neither of those assumptions always holds. In many real-world settings, votes come in sequentially, and the briber may have a use-it-or-lose-it moment to decide whether to bribe/alter a given vote, and at the time of making that decision, the briber may not know what votes remaining voters are planning on casting. In this paper, we introduce a model for, and initiate the study of, bribery in such an online, sequential setting. We show that even for election systems whose winner-determination problem is polynomial-time computable, an online, sequential setting may vastly increase the complexity of bribery, in fact jumping the problem up to completeness for high levels of the polynomial hierarchy or even PSPACE. On the other hand, we show that for some natural, important election systems, such a dramatic complexity increase does not occur, and we pinpoint the complexity of their bribery problems in the online, sequential setting.
Most work on manipulation assumes that all preferences are known to the manipulators. However, in many settings elections are open and sequential, and manipulators may know the already cast votes but may not know the future votes. We introduce a framework, in which manipulators can see the past votes but not the future ones, to model online coalitional manipulation of sequential elections, and we show that in this setting manipulation can be extremely complex even for election systems with simple winner problems. Yet we also show that for some of the most important election systems such manipulation is simple in certain settings. This suggests that when using sequential voting, one should pay great attention to the details of the setting in choosing ones voting rule. Among the highlights of our classifications are: We show that, depending on the size of the manipulative coalition, the online manipulation problem can be complete for each level of the polynomial hierarchy or even for PSPACE. We obtain the most dramatic contrast to date between the nonunique-winner and unique-winner models: Online weighted manipulation for plurality is in P in the nonunique-winner model, yet is coNP-hard (constructive case) and NP-hard (destructive case) in the unique-winner model. And we obtain what to the best of our knowledge are the first PNP[1]-completeness and PNP-completeness results in the field of computational social choice, in particular proving such completeness for, respectively, the complexity of 3-candidate and 4-candidate (and unlimited-candidate) online weighted coalition manipulation of veto elections.
Most work on manipulation assumes that all preferences are known to the manipulators. However, in many settings elections are open and sequential, and manipulators may know the already cast votes but may not know the future votes. We introduce a framework, in which manipulators can see the past votes but not the future ones, to model online coalitional manipulation of sequential elections, and we show that in this setting manipulation can be extremely complex even for election systems with simple winner problems. Yet we also show that for some of the most important election systems such manipulation is simple in certain settings. This suggests that when using sequential voting, one should pay great attention to the details of the setting in choosing ones voting rule. Among the highlights of our classifications are: We show that, depending on the size of the manipulative coalition, the online manipulation problem can be complete for each level of the polynomial hierarchy or even for PSPACE. We obtain the most dramatic contrast to date between the nonunique-winner and unique-winner models: Online weighted manipulation for plurality is in P in the nonunique-winner model, yet is coNP-hard (constructive case) and NP-hard (destructive case) in the unique-winner model. And we obtain what to the best of our knowledge are the first P^NP[1]-completeness and P^NP-completeness results in the field of computational social choice, in particular proving such completeness for, respectively, the complexity of 3-candidate and 4-candidate (and unlimited-candidate) online weighted coalition manipulation of veto elections.
Log in to be able to interact and post comments
comments
Fetching comments
Sign in to be able to follow your search criteria
