Modeling Voters in Multi-Winner Approval Voting

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2012.02811v1
• Date: Fri, 4 Dec 2020 19:24:28 GMT
• Title: Modeling Voters in Multi-Winner Approval Voting
• Authors: Jaelle Scheuerman, Jason Harman, Nicholas Mattei, K. Brent Venable
• Abstract summary: 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.
• Score: 24.002910959494923
• License: http://arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/
• Abstract: In many real world situations, collective decisions are made using voting and, in scenarios such as committee or board elections, employing voting rules that return multiple winners. In multi-winner approval voting (AV), an agent submits a ballot consisting of approvals for as many candidates as they wish, and winners are chosen by tallying up the votes and choosing the top-$k$ candidates receiving the most approvals. In many scenarios, an agent may manipulate the ballot they submit in order to achieve a better outcome by voting in a way that does not reflect their true preferences. In complex and uncertain situations, agents may use heuristics instead of incurring the additional effort required to compute the manipulation which most favors them. In this paper, we examine voting behavior in single-winner and multi-winner approval voting scenarios with varying degrees of uncertainty using behavioral data obtained from Mechanical Turk. We find that people generally manipulate their vote to obtain a better outcome, but often do not identify the optimal manipulation. There are a number of predictive models of agent behavior in the COMSOC and psychology literature that are based on cognitively plausible heuristic strategies. We show that the existing approaches do not adequately model real-world data. We propose a novel model that takes into account the size of the winning set and human cognitive constraints, and demonstrate that this model is more effective at capturing real-world behaviors in multi-winner approval voting scenarios.

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)
• Representation Bias in Political Sample Simulations with Large Language Models [54.48283690603358]
  This study seeks to identify and quantify biases in simulating political samples with Large Language Models. Using the GPT-3.5-Turbo model, we leverage data from the American National Election Studies, German Longitudinal Election Study, Zuobiao dataset, and China Family Panel Studies.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-07-16T05:52:26Z)
• Employing Universal Voting Schemes for Improved Visual Place Recognition Performance [16.242139178368923]
  This paper analyses several voting schemes to maximise the place detection accuracy of a VPR ensemble set up. We take inspiration from a variety of voting schemes that are widely employed in fields such as politics and sociology.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-03-08T14:19:14Z)
• 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)
• Learning to Manipulate under Limited Information [44.99833362998488]
  We trained over 70,000 neural networks of 26 sizes to manipulate against 8 different voting methods. We find that some voting methods, such as Borda, are highly manipulable by networks with limited information, while others, such as Instant Runoff, are not.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-01-29T18:49:50Z)
• 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)
• Candidate Incentive Distributions: How voting methods shape electoral incentives [0.0]
  We find that Instant Runoff Voting incentivizes candidates to appeal to a wider range of voters than Plurality Voting. We find that Condorcet methods and STAR (Score Then Automatic Runoff) Voting provide the most balanced incentives.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-06-12T14:32:46Z)
• Data as voters: instance selection using approval-based multi-winner voting [1.597617022056624]
  We present a novel approach to the instance selection problem in machine learning (or data mining) In our model, instances play a double role as voters and candidates. For SVMs, we have obtained slight increases in the average accuracy by using several voting rules that satisfy EJR or PJR.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-04-19T22:00:23Z)
• Obvious Manipulability of Voting Rules [105.35249497503527]
  The Gibbard-Satterthwaite theorem states that no unanimous and non-dictatorial voting rule is strategyproof. We revisit voting rules and consider a weaker notion of strategyproofness called not obvious manipulability.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-11-03T02:41:48Z)
• 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)
• Evaluating approval-based multiwinner voting in terms of robustness to noise [10.135719343010177]
  We show that approval-based multiwinner voting is always robust to reasonable noise. We further refine this finding by presenting a hierarchy of rules in terms of how robust to noise they are.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-02-05T13:17:43Z)

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.