scholarly journals Communication, Distortion, and Randomness in Metric Voting

2020 ◽  
Vol 34 (02) ◽  
pp. 2087-2094
Author(s):  
David Kempe

In distortion-based analysis of social choice rules over metric spaces, voters and candidates are jointly embedded in a metric space. Voters rank candidates by non-decreasing distance. The mechanism, receiving only this ordinal (comparison) information, must select a candidate approximately minimizing the sum of distances from all voters to the chosen candidate. It is known that while the Copeland rule and related rules guarantee distortion at most 5, the distortion of many other standard voting rules, such as Plurality, Veto, or k-approval, grows unboundedly in the number n of candidates.An advantage of Plurality, Veto, or k-approval with small k is that they require less communication from the voters; all deterministic social choice rules known to achieve constant distortion require voters to transmit their complete rankings of all candidates. This motivates our study of the tradeoff between the distortion and the amount of communication in deterministic social choice rules.We show that any one-round deterministic voting mechanism in which each voter communicates only the candidates she ranks in a given set of k positions must have distortion at least 2n-k/k; we give a mechanism achieving an upper bound of O(n/k), which matches the lower bound up to a constant. For more general communication-bounded voting mechanisms, in which each voter communicates b bits of information about her ranking, we show a slightly weaker lower bound of Ω(n/b) on the distortion.For randomized mechanisms, Random Dictatorship achieves expected distortion strictly smaller than 3, almost matching a lower bound of 3 − 2/n for any randomized mechanism that only receives each voter's top choice. We close this gap, by giving a simple randomized social choice rule which only uses each voter's first choice, and achieves expected distortion 3 − 2/n.

Author(s):  
Andrei Marius Vlăducu

The authors analyze three social choice rules (plurality voting, approval voting and Borda count) from a behavioral economics perspective aiming three objectives: 1) if it is a viable solution to use these procedures during mass elections; 2) why individuals prefer a specific social choice rule and not another; 3) how status quo bias and framing effect influence the preference of individuals for a certain social choice rule. The research is conducted with 87 participants to a lab experiment and data suggest that for using approval voting and Borda count during mass elections is necessary to increase the people level of information about their benefits. When making a decision in a political or economic context seem that people tend to prefer simple plurality rule do to its availability and maybe because of its strong reliance with status quo bias.


2021 ◽  
Vol 70 ◽  
pp. 1413-1439
Author(s):  
Laurent Bulteau ◽  
Gal Shahaf ◽  
Ehud Shapiro ◽  
Nimrod Talmon

We present a unifying framework encompassing a plethora of social choice settings. Viewing each social choice setting as voting in a suitable metric space, we offer a general model of social choice over metric spaces, in which—similarly to the spatial model of elections—each voter specifies an ideal element of the metric space. The ideal element acts as a vote, where each voter prefers elements that are closer to her ideal element. But it also acts as a proposal, thus making all participants equal not only as voters but also as proposers. We consider Condorcet aggregation and a continuum of solution concepts, ranging from minimizing the sum of distances to minimizing the maximum distance. We study applications of our abstract model to various social choice settings, including single-winner elections, committee elections, participatory budgeting, and participatory legislation. For each setting, we compare each solution concept to known voting rules and study various properties of the resulting voting rules. Our framework provides expressive aggregation for a broad range of social choice settings while remaining simple for voters; and may enable a unified and integrated implementation for all these settings, as well as unified extensions such as sybil-resiliency, proxy voting, and deliberative decision making. We study applications of our abstract model to various social choice settings, including single-winner elections, committee elections, participatory budgeting, and participatory legislation. For each setting, we compare each solution concept to known voting rules and study various properties of the resulting voting rules. Our framework provides expressive aggregation for a broad range of social choice settings while remaining simple for voters; and may enable a unified and integrated implementation for all these settings, as well as unified extensions such as sybil-resiliency, proxy voting, and deliberative decision making.


2019 ◽  
Vol 70 (3) ◽  
pp. 871-904 ◽  
Author(s):  
Michele Lombardi ◽  
Naoki Yoshihara

Abstract A partially-honest individual is a person who follows the maxim, “Do not lie if you do not have to”, to serve your material interest. By assuming that the mechanism designer knows that there is at least one partially-honest individual in a society of $$ n\ge 3$$ n ≥ 3 individuals, a social choice rule that can be Nash implemented is termed partially-honestly Nash implementable. The paper offers a complete characterization of the (unanimous) social choice rules that are partially-honestly Nash implementable. When all individuals are partially-honest, then any (unanimous) rule is partially-honestly Nash implementable. An account of the welfare implications of partially-honest Nash implementation is provided in a variety of environments.


2020 ◽  
Vol 34 (02) ◽  
pp. 2079-2086
Author(s):  
David Kempe

Distortion-based analysis has established itself as a fruitful framework for comparing voting mechanisms. m voters and n candidates are jointly embedded in an (unknown) metric space, and the voters submit rankings of candidates by non-decreasing distance from themselves. Based on the submitted rankings, the social choice rule chooses a winning candidate; the quality of the winner is the sum of the (unknown) distances to the voters. The rule's choice will in general be suboptimal, and the worst-case ratio between the cost of its chosen candidate and the optimal candidate is called the rule's distortion. It was shown in prior work that every deterministic rule has distortion at least 3, while the Copeland rule and related rules guarantee distortion at most 5; a very recent result gave a rule with distortion 2 + √5 ≈ 4.236.We provide a framework based on LP-duality and flow interpretations of the dual which provides a simpler and more unified way for proving upper bounds on the distortion of social choice rules. We illustrate the utility of this approach with three examples. First, we show that the Ranked Pairs and Schulze rules have distortion Θ(√n). Second, we give a fairly simple proof of a strong generalization of the upper bound of 5 on the distortion of Copeland, to social choice rules with short paths from the winning candidate to the optimal candidate in generalized weak preference graphs. A special case of this result recovers the recent 2 + √5 guarantee. Finally, our framework naturally suggests a combinatorial rule that is a strong candidate for achieving distortion 3, which had also been proposed in recent work. We prove that the distortion bound of 3 would follow from any of three combinatorial conjectures we formulate.


2013 ◽  
Vol 70 (3) ◽  
pp. 279-312
Author(s):  
Rosa Camps ◽  
Xavier Mora ◽  
Laia Saumell

2007 ◽  
Vol 60 (1) ◽  
pp. 20-30 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jean Pierre Benoît ◽  
Efe A. Ok ◽  
M. Remzi Sanver

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document