Obvious Manipulability of Voting Rules

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2111.01983v1
• Date: Wed, 3 Nov 2021 02:41:48 GMT
• Title: Obvious Manipulability of Voting Rules
• Authors: Haris Aziz and Alexander Lam
• Abstract summary: 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.
• Score: 105.35249497503527
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: 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 that was proposed by Troyan and Morrill (2020). We identify several classes of voting rules that satisfy this notion. We also show that several voting rules including k-approval fail to satisfy this property. We characterize conditions under which voting rules are obviously manipulable. One of our insights is that certain rules are obviously manipulable when the number of alternatives is relatively large compared to the number of voters. In contrast to the Gibbard-Satterthwaite theorem, many of the rules we examined are not obviously manipulable. This reflects the relatively easier satisfiability of the notion and the zero information assumption of not obvious manipulability, as opposed to the perfect information assumption of strategyproofness. We also present algorithmic results for computing obvious manipulations and report on experiments.

Related papers

• DeepVoting: Learning Voting Rules with Tailored Embeddings [13.037431161285971]
  We recast the problem of designing a good voting rule into one of learning probabilistic versions of voting rules. We show that embeddings of preference profiles derived from the social choice literature allows us to learn existing voting rules more efficiently. We also show that rules learned using embeddings can be tweaked to create novel voting rules with improved axiomatic properties.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-08-24T17:15:20Z)
• 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)
• 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)
• The Decisive Power of Indecision: Low-Variance Risk-Limiting Audits and Election Contestation via Marginal Mark Recording [51.82772358241505]
  Risk-limiting audits (RLAs) are techniques for verifying the outcomes of large elections. We define new families of audits that improve efficiency and offer advances in statistical power. New audits are enabled by revisiting the standard notion of a cast-vote record so that it can declare multiple possible mark interpretations.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-02-09T16:23:54Z)
• 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)
• Auditing Ranked Voting Elections with Dirichlet-Tree Models: First Steps [23.14629947453497]
  Ranked voting systems are used in many places around the world. There is no known risk-limiting audit (RLA) method for STV other than a full hand count. We present a new approach to auditing ranked systems that uses a statistical model, a Dirichlet-tree, that can cope with high-dimensional parameters in a computationally efficient manner.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-06-29T13:06:42Z)
• An algorithm for a fairer and better voting system [0.0]
  This article is about a novel, better ranked voting system that aims to solve the problem of finding the best candidate to represent the voters. We have the source code on GitHub, for making realistic simulations of elections, based on artificial intelligence. We have convincing evidence that our algorithm is better than Instant-Runoff Voting, Preferential Block Voting, Single Transferable Vote, and First Past The Post.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-10-13T22:34:49Z)
• 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.