Multi-agent simulation of voter's behaviour
- URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2101.11538v1
- Date: Wed, 27 Jan 2021 16:48:03 GMT
- Title: Multi-agent simulation of voter's behaviour
- Authors: Albin Soutif and Carole Adam and Sylvain Bouveret
- Abstract summary: The goal of this paper is to simulate the voters behaviour given a voting method.
Our approach uses a multi-agent simulation in order to model a voting process through many iterations, so that the voters can vote by taking into account the results of polls.
- Score: 2.2043969529099097
- License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
- Abstract: The goal of this paper is to simulate the voters behaviour given a voting
method. Our approach uses a multi-agent simulation in order to model a voting
process through many iterations, so that the voters can vote by taking into
account the results of polls. Here we only tried basic rules and a single
voting method, but further attempts could explore new features.
Related papers
- ElectionSim: Massive Population Election Simulation Powered by Large Language Model Driven Agents [70.17229548653852]
We introduce ElectionSim, an innovative election simulation framework based on large language models.
We present a million-level voter pool sampled from social media platforms to support accurate individual simulation.
We also introduce PPE, a poll-based presidential election benchmark to assess the performance of our framework under the U.S. presidential election scenario.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2024-10-28T05:25:50Z) - 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) - Fair and Inclusive Participatory Budgeting: Voter Experience with
Cumulative and Quadratic Voting Interfaces [1.4730691320093603]
Cumulative and quadratic voting are expressive, promoting fairness and inclusion.
Despite these benefits, graphical voter interfaces for cumulative and quadratic voting are complex to implement and use effectively.
This paper introduces an implementation and evaluation of cumulative and quadratic voting within a state-of-the-art voting platform: Stanford Participatory Budgeting.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2023-08-08T15:45:55Z) - 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) - VoteLab: A Modular and Adaptive Experimentation Platform for Online Collective Decision Making [0.9503786527351696]
This paper introduces VoteLab, an open-source platform for modular and adaptive design of voting experiments.
It supports to visually and interactively build reusable campaigns with a choice of different voting methods.
Voters can easily respond to subscribed voting questions on a smartphone.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2023-07-20T14:26:21Z) - 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) - Towards Secure Virtual Elections: Multiparty Computation of Order Based Voting Rules [5.156484100374059]
One of the main challenges in e-voting systems is to certify that the computed results are consistent with the cast ballots.
We propose a secure voting protocol for elections governed by order-based voting rules.
Our protocol offers perfect ballot secrecy, in the sense that it issues only the required output, while no other information on the cast ballots is revealed.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2022-05-21T12:17:21Z) - Expected Frequency Matrices of Elections: Computation, Geometry, and
Preference Learning [58.23459346724491]
We use the "map of elections" approach of Szufa et al. (AAMAS 2020) to analyze several well-known vote distributions.
We draw the "skeleton map" of distributions, evaluate its robustness, and analyze its properties.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2022-05-16T17:40:22Z) - 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) - 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)
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.