Fair Voting Methods as a Catalyst for Democratic Resilience: A Trilogy on Legitimacy, Impact and AI Safeguarding

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2512.17461v1
• Date: Fri, 19 Dec 2025 11:24:26 GMT
• Title: Fair Voting Methods as a Catalyst for Democratic Resilience: A Trilogy on Legitimacy, Impact and AI Safeguarding
• Authors: Evangelos Pournaras,
• Abstract summary: This article shows how fair voting methods can be a catalyst for change in the way we make collective decisions.<n>I highlight a trilogy of key research results: Fair voting methods achieve to be (i) legitimacy incubator, (ii) novel impact accelerator and (iii) safeguard for risks of artificial intelligence (AI)<n>I also review the relevance of such upgrades for democracies in crisis, such as the one of Greece featured in the recent study of Unmute Democracy'
• Score: 0.0
• License: http://arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/
• Abstract: This article shows how fair voting methods can be a catalyst for change in the way we make collective decisions, and how such change can promote long-awaited upgrades of democracy. Based on real-world evidence from democratic innovations in participatory budgeting, in Switzerland and beyond, I highlight a trilogy of key research results: Fair voting methods achieve to be (i) legitimacy incubator, (ii) novel impact accelerator and (iii) safeguard for risks of artificial intelligence (AI). Compared to majoritarian voting methods, combining expressive ballot formats (e.g. cumulative voting) with ballot aggregation methods that promote proportional representation (e.g. equal shares) results in more winners and higher (geographical) representation of citizens. Such fair voting methods are preferred and found fairer even by voters who do not win, while promoting stronger democratic values for citizens such as altruism and compromise. They also result in new resourceful ideas to put for voting, which are cost-effective and win, especially in areas of welfare, education and culture. Strikingly, fair voting methods are also more resilient to biases and inconsistencies of generative AI in emerging scenarios of AI voting assistance or AI representation of voters who would be likely to abstain. I also review the relevance of such upgrades for democracies in crisis, such as the one of Greece featured in the recent study of `Unmute Democracy'. Greek democracy can build stronger resilience via higher representation of citizens in democratic processes as well as democratic innovations in participation. Fair voting methods can be a catalyst for both endeavors.

Related papers

• Upgrading Democracies with Fairer Voting Methods [0.6282171844772421]
  We show how one can upgrade real-world democracies by using alternative preferential voting methods.<n>By rigorously assessing a new participatory budgeting approach applied in the city of Aarau, Switzerland, we unravel the striking voting outcomes.<n>We also reveal strong underlying democratic values exhibited by citizens who support fair voting methods.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-05-20T13:31:43Z)
• Optimal bounds for dissatisfaction in perpetual voting [84.02572742131521]
  We consider a perpetual approval voting method that guarantees that no voter is dissatisfied too many times.<n>We identify a sufficient condition on voter behavior under which a sublinear growth of dissatisfaction is possible.<n>We present a voting method with sublinear guarantees on dissatisfaction under bounded conflicts, based on the standard techniques from prediction with expert advice.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-12-20T19:58:55Z)
• Digital Democracy in the Age of Artificial Intelligence [0.16385815610837165]
  This chapter explores the influence of Artificial Intelligence (AI) on digital democracy.<n>It focuses on four main areas: citizenship, participation, representation, and the public sphere.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-11-26T10:20:53Z)
• Aligning AI with Public Values: Deliberation and Decision-Making for Governing Multimodal LLMs in Political Video Analysis [48.14390493099495]
  How AI models should deal with political topics has been discussed, but it remains challenging and requires better governance.<n>This paper examines the governance of large language models through individual and collective deliberation, focusing on politically sensitive videos.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-09-15T03:17:38Z)
• Artificial Intelligence in Election Campaigns: Perceptions, Penalties, and Implications [44.99833362998488]
  We identify three categories of AI use -- campaign operations, voter outreach, and deception.<n>While people generally dislike AI in campaigns, they are especially critical of deceptive uses, which they perceive as norm violations.<n>Deception AI use increases public support for stricter AI regulation, including calls for an outright ban on AI development.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-08-08T12:58:20Z)
• 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 that complex preferential ballot formats exhibit significant inconsistencies compared to simpler majoritarian elections.<n>Strikingly though, by demonstrating for the first time in real-world a proportional representation of voters in direct democracy, we are also able to show that fair ballot aggregation methods, such as equal shares, prove to be a win-win.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-05-31T01:41:48Z)
• Learning to Manipulate under Limited Information [44.99833362998488]
  We trained over 100,000 neural networks of 26 sizes to manipulate against 8 different voting methods.<n>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)
• A Liquid Perspective on Democratic Choice [1.3833241949666322]
  The idea of liquid democracy responds to a widely-felt desire to make democracy more "fluid" and continuously participatory. This paper develops and explores the "liquid" notion and what it might mean for purposes of enhancing voter choice. The goal of this paper is to disentangle and further develop some of the many concepts and goals that liquid democracy ideas often embody.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-03-26T09:43:01Z)

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.