Auditing Hamiltonian Elections

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2102.08510v2
• Date: Tue, 29 Jun 2021 13:06:15 GMT
• Title: Auditing Hamiltonian Elections
• Authors: Michelle Blom, Philip B. Stark, Peter J. Stuckey, Vanessa Teague and Damjan Vukcevic
• Abstract summary: We show how to conduct risk-limiting audits for delegate allocation elections using variants of the Hamilton method. Experiments on real-world elections show that we can audit primary elections to high confidence (small risk limits) usually at low cost.
• Score: 24.832413743954618
• License: http://arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/
• Abstract: Presidential primaries are a critical part of the United States Presidential electoral process, since they are used to select the candidates in the Presidential election. While methods differ by state and party, many primaries involve proportional delegate allocation using the so-called Hamilton method. In this paper we show how to conduct risk-limiting audits for delegate allocation elections using variants of the Hamilton method where the viability of candidates is determined either by a plurality vote or using instant runoff voting. Experiments on real-world elections show that we can audit primary elections to high confidence (small risk limits) usually at low cost.

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)
• 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)
• Publicly auditable privacy-preserving electoral rolls [0.32498796510544625]
  We study the problem of designing publicly auditable yet privacy-preserving electoral rolls. The audit can detect polling-day ballot stuffing and denials to eligible voters by malicious polling officers. The entire electoral roll is never revealed, which prevents any large-scale systematic voter targeting and manipulation.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-02-18T13:11:48Z)
• 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)
• Risk-Limiting Audits for Condorcet Elections [27.102139020324678]
  We show how we can efficiently audit Condorcet elections for a number of variations. We also compare the audit efficiency (how many ballots we expect to sample) of IRV and Condorcet elections.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-03-18T22:08:17Z)
• Pandering in a Flexible Representative Democracy [24.462078390546246]
  We examine the resilience of two democratic voting systems to pandering within a single round and across multiple rounds. For each voting system, our analysis centers on the types of strategies candidates employ and how voters update their views of candidates based on how the candidates have pandered in the past.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-11-18T02:19:28Z)
• Identifying Possible Winners in Ranked Choice Voting Elections with Outstanding Ballots [0.0]
  ranked-choice voting (RCV) allows voters to rank their choices, and the results are computed in rounds. RCV election outcomes are not always apparent on election night, and can take several weeks to be published. We present an algorithm for efficiently computing possible winners of RCV elections from partially known ballots.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-06-25T22:08:15Z)
• 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)
• A First Approach to Risk-Limiting Audits for Single Transferable Vote Elections [27.102139020324678]
  Risk-limiting audits (RLAs) are an increasingly important method for checking that the reported outcome of an election is, in fact, correct. This paper presents the first approach to risk-limiting audits for single transferable vote (STV) elections.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-12-18T12:36:39Z)
• 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)
• 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)

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.