Random errors are not necessarily politically neutral

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2007.00854v3
• Date: Mon, 28 Sep 2020 07:10:38 GMT
• Title: Random errors are not necessarily politically neutral
• Authors: Michelle Blom, Andrew Conway, Peter J. Stuckey, Vanessa Teague, Damjan Vukcevic
• Abstract summary: We examine the effect of random errors on Single Transferable Vote (STV) elections. The most important effect of random errors is to invalidate the ballot. Different validity rules for different voting styles mean that errors are much more likely to penalise some types of votes than others.
• Score: 25.75404628089468
• License: http://arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/
• Abstract: Errors are inevitable in the implementation of any complex process. Here we examine the effect of random errors on Single Transferable Vote (STV) elections, a common approach to deciding multi-seat elections. It is usually expected that random errors should have nearly equal effects on all candidates, and thus be fair. We find to the contrary that random errors can introduce systematic bias into election results. This is because, even if the errors are random, votes for different candidates occur in different patterns that are affected differently by random errors. In the STV context, the most important effect of random errors is to invalidate the ballot. This removes far more votes for those candidates whose supporters tend to list a lot of preferences, because their ballots are much more likely to be invalidated by random error. Different validity rules for different voting styles mean that errors are much more likely to penalise some types of votes than others. For close elections this systematic bias can change the result of the election.

Related papers

• Improving the Computational Efficiency of Adaptive Audits of IRV Elections [54.427049258408424]
  AWAIRE can audit IRV contests with any number of candidates, but the original implementation incurred memory and computation costs that grew superexponentially with the number of candidates. This paper improves the algorithmic implementation of AWAIRE in three ways that make it practical to audit IRV contests with 55 candidates, compared to the previous 6 candidates.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-07-23T13:28:00Z)
• Ahead of the Count: An Algorithm for Probabilistic Prediction of Instant Runoff (IRV) Elections [0.0]
  We introduce a novel algorithm designed to predict outcomes in Instant Runoff Voting (IRV) elections. The algorithm takes as input a set of discrete probability distributions describing vote totals for each candidate ranking. We calculate all possible sequences of eliminations that might occur in the IRV rounds and assign a probability to each.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-05-15T00:25:51Z)
• Efficient Weighting Schemes for Auditing Instant-Runoff Voting Elections [57.67176250198289]
  AWAIRE involves adaptively weighted averages of test statistics, essentially "learning" an effective set of hypotheses to test. We explore schemes and settings more extensively, to identify and recommend efficient choices for practice. A limitation of the current AWAIRE implementation is its restriction to a small number of candidates.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-02-18T10:13:01Z)
• Partially Informed Elections -- Analyzing the Impact of Forced Ballot Truncation on Bucklin, Coombs, Plurality with Runoff, and Schulze [0.0]
  This study analyzes how forced ballot truncation affects the Bucklin, Coombs, plurality with runoff, and Schulze voting systems' abilities to output their true winning sets. Results show that plurality with runoff was the most resistant to forced truncation, followed by Schulze, Bucklin, and Coombs.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-09-29T02:44:48Z)
• Adaptively Weighted Audits of Instant-Runoff Voting Elections: AWAIRE [61.872917066847855]
  Methods for auditing instant-runoff voting (IRV) elections are either not risk-limiting or require cast vote records (CVRs), the voting system's electronic record of the votes on each ballot. We develop an RLA method that uses adaptively weighted averages of test supermartingales to efficiently audit IRV elections when CVRs are not available.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-07-20T15:55:34Z)
• Ballot-Polling Audits of Instant-Runoff Voting Elections with a Dirichlet-Tree Model [23.14629947453497]
  Instant-runoff voting (IRV) is used in several countries around the world. It requires voters to rank candidates in order of preference, and uses a counting algorithm that is more complex than systems such as first-past-the-post or scoring rules. An even more complex system, the single transferable vote (STV), is used when multiple candidates need to be elected. There is currently no known risk-limiting audit (RLA) method for STV, other than a full manual count of the ballots.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-09-08T15:35:50Z)
• Mundus vult decipi, ergo decipiatur: Visual Communication of Uncertainty in Election Polls [56.8172499765118]
  We discuss potential sources of bias in nowcasting and forecasting. Concepts are presented to attenuate the issue of falsely perceived accuracy. One key idea is the use of Probabilities of Events instead of party shares.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-04-28T07:02:24Z)
• Selecting a number of voters for a voting ensemble [0.24366811507669117]
  We show that any number of voters may minimize the error rate over an out-of-sample distribution. The optimal number of voters depends on the out-of-sample distribution of the number of classifiers in error.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-04-23T22:37:02Z)
• Bribery as a Measure of Candidate Success: Complexity Results for Approval-Based Multiwinner Rules [58.8640284079665]
  We study the problem of bribery in multiwinner elections, for the case where the voters cast approval ballots (i.e., sets of candidates they approve) We consider a number of approval-based multiwinner rules (AV, SAV, GAV, RAV, approval-based Chamberlin--Courant, and PAV) In general, our problems tend to be easier when we limit out bribery actions on increasing the number of approvals of the candidate that we want to be in a winning committee.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-04-19T08:26:40Z)
• Modeling Voters in Multi-Winner Approval Voting [24.002910959494923]
  We study voting behavior in single-winner and multi-winner approval voting scenarios with varying degrees of uncertainty. We find that people generally manipulate their vote to obtain a better outcome, but often do not identify the optimal manipulation. We propose a novel model that takes into account the size of the winning set and human cognitive constraints.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-12-04T19:24:28Z)
• Electoral Forecasting Using a Novel Temporal Attenuation Model: Predicting the US Presidential Elections [91.3755431537592]
  We develop a novel macro-scale temporal attenuation (TA) model, which uses pre-election poll data to improve forecasting accuracy. Our hypothesis is that the timing of publicizing opinion polls plays a significant role in how opinion oscillates, especially right before elections. We present two different implementations of the TA model, which accumulate an average forecasting error of 2.8-3.28 points over the 48-year period.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-04-30T09:21:52Z)

This list is automatically generated from the titles and abstracts of the papers in this site.

This site does not guarantee the quality of this site (including all information) and is not responsible for any consequences.