Subscribe to the gold package and get unlimited access to Shamra Academy
Register a new userSequential Voting with Confirmation Network
112
0
0.0
(
0
)
Added by
EPTCS
Publication date
2018
fields
Informatics Engineering
and research's language is
English
Ask ChatGPT about the research
No Arabic abstract
We discuss voting scenarios in which the set of voters (agents) and the set of alternatives are the same; that is, voters select a single representative from among themselves. Such a scenario happens, for instance, when a committee selects a chairperson, or when peer researchers select a prize winner. Our model assumes that each voter either renders worthy (confirms) or unworthy any other agent. We further assume that the prime goal of each agent is to be selected himself. Only if that is not feasible, will he try to get one of those that he confirms selected. In this paper, we investigate the open-sequential voting system in the above model. We consider both plurality (where each voter has one vote) and approval (where a voter may vote for any subset). Our results show that it is possible to find scenarios in which the selected agent is much less popular than the optimal (most popular) agent. We prove, however, that in the case of approval voting, the ratio between their popularity is always bounded from above by 2. In the case of plurality voting, we show that there are cases in which some of the equilibria give an unbounded ratio, but there always exists at least one equilibrium with ratio 2 at most.
rate research
Read More
We analyse strategic, complete information, sequential voting with ordinal preferences over the alternatives. We consider several voting mechanisms: plurality voting and approval voting with deterministic or uniform tie-breaking rules. We show that strategic voting in these voting procedures may lead to a very undesirable outcome: Condorcet winning alternative might be rejected, Condorcet losing alternative might be elected, and Pareto dominated alternative might be elected. These undesirable phenomena occur already with four alternatives and a small number of voters. For the case of three alternatives we present positive and negative results.
Despite the prevalence of voting systems in the real world there is no consensus among researchers of how people vote strategically, even in simple voting settings. This paper addresses this gap by comparing different approaches that have been used to model strategic voting, including expected utility maximization, heuristic decisionmaking, and bounded rationality models. The models are applied to data collected from hundreds of people in controlled voting experiments, where people vote after observing non-binding poll information. We introduce a new voting model, the Attainability- Utility (AU) heuristic, which weighs the popularity of a candidate according to the poll, with the utility of the candidate to the voter. We argue that the AU model is cognitively plausible, and show that it is able to predict peoples voting behavior significantly better than other models from the literature. It was almost at par with (and sometimes better than) a machine learning algorithm that uses substantially more information. Our results provide new insights into the strategic considerations of voters, that undermine the prevalent assumptions of much theoretical work in social choice.
The question of how people vote strategically under uncertainty has attracted much attention in several disciplines. Theoretical decision models have been proposed which vary in their assumptions on the sophistication of the voters and on the information made available to them about others preferences and their voting behavior. This work focuses on modeling strategic voting behavior under poll information. It proposes a new heuristic for voting behavior that weighs the success of each candidate according to the poll score with the utility of the candidate given the voters preferences. The model weights can be tuned individually for each voter. We compared this model with other relevant voting models from the literature on data obtained from a recently released large scale study. We show that the new heuristic outperforms all other tested models. The prediction errors of the model can be partly explained due to inconsistent voters that vote for (weakly) dominated candidates.
We propose a new single-winner election method (Schulze method) and prove that it satisfies many academic criteria (e.g. monotonicity, reversal symmetry, resolvability, independence of clones, Condorcet criterion, k-consistency, polynomial runtime). We then generalize this method to proportional representation by the single transferable vote (Schulze STV) and to methods to calculate a proportional ranking (Schulze proportional ranking). Furthermore, we propose a generalization of the Condorcet criterion to multi-winner elections. This paper contains a large number of examples to illustrate the proposed methods.
Perpetual voting was recently introduced as a framework for long-term collective decision making. In this framework, we consider a sequence of subsequent approval-based elections and try to achieve a fair overall outcome. To achieve fairness over time, perpetual voting rules take the history of previous decisions into account and identify voters that were dissatisfied with previous decisions. In this paper, we look at perpetual voting rules from an axiomatic perspective and study two main questions. First, we ask how simple such rules can be while still meeting basic desiderata. For two simple but natural classes, we fully characterize the axiomatic possibilities. Second, we ask how proportionality can be formalized in perpetual voting. We study proportionality on simple profiles that are equivalent to the apportionment setting and show that lower and upper quota axioms can be used to distinguish (and sometimes characterize) perpetual voting rules. Furthermore, we show a surprising connection between a perpetual rule called Perpetual Consensus and Freges apportionment method.
Log in to be able to interact and post comments
comments
Fetching comments
Sign in to be able to follow your search criteria
