Candidate Incentive Distributions: How voting methods shape electoral incentives

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2306.07147v2
• Date: Tue, 2 Apr 2024 19:18:28 GMT
• Title: Candidate Incentive Distributions: How voting methods shape electoral incentives
• Authors: Marcus Ogren,
• Abstract summary: 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.
• Score: 0.0
• License: http://arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/
• Abstract: We evaluate the tendency for different voting methods to promote political compromise and reduce tensions in a society by using computer simulations to determine which voters candidates are incentivized to appeal to. We find that Instant Runoff Voting incentivizes candidates to appeal to a wider range of voters than Plurality Voting, but that it leaves candidates far more strongly incentivized to appeal to their base than to voters in opposing factions. In contrast, we find that Condorcet methods and STAR (Score Then Automatic Runoff) Voting provide the most balanced incentives; these differences between voting methods become more pronounced with more candidates are in the race and less pronounced in the presence of strategic voting. We find that the incentives provided by Single Transferable Vote to appeal to opposing voters are negligible, but that a tweak to the tabulation algorithm makes them substantial.

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)
• Generative AI Voting: Fair Collective Choice is Resilient to LLM Biases and Inconsistencies [21.444936180683147]
  We show for the first time in real-world a proportional representation of voters in direct democracy. We also show that fair ballot aggregation methods, such as equal shares, prove to be a win-win: fairer voting outcomes for humans with fairer AI representation.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-05-31T01:41:48Z)
• 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)
• Rank, Pack, or Approve: Voting Methods in Participatory Budgeting [2.326556516716391]
  The Stanford Participatory Budgeting platform has been used to engage residents in more than 150 budgeting processes. We present a data set with anonymized budget opinions from these processes with K-approval, K-ranking or knapsack primary ballots. We use vote pairs with different voting methods to analyze the effect of voting methods on the cost of selected projects.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-01-23T01:19:44Z)
• 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)
• 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)
• 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.