Voting Rules and Coordination Problems

When choosing a voting rule to make subsequent decisions, the members of a committee may wish this rule to be self-selected when it is the object of a choice among a menu of different possible voting rules. Such concepts have recently been explored in Social Choice theory, and a menu of voting rule is said to be stable if it contains at least one self-selective voting rule at each profile of preferences on voting rules. We consider in this article the menu constituted by the three well-known scoring rules {Borda, Plurality, and Antiplurality}. Under the Impartial Culture assumption, which proposes an a priori model to estimate the likelihood of the profiles, we will derive a probability for the stability of this triplet of voting rules.

The concept of distance rationalizability has several applications within social choice. In the context of voting, it allows one to define (rationalize) voting rules via a consensus class (roughly, a set of elections in which it is obvious who should win) and a distance function: namely, a candidate is said to be an election winner if it is ranked first in one of the nearest (with respect to the given distance) consensus elections. It is known that many classic voting rules can be represented in this manner. In this paper, we provide new results on distance rationalizability of several well-known voting rules such as all scoring rules, Approval, Young's rule and Maximin. We also show that a previously published proof of distance rationalizability of Young's rule is incorrect: the consensus notion and the distance function used in that proof give rise to a voting rule that is similar to---but distinct from---the Young's rule. Finally, we demonstrate that some voting rules cannot be rationalized via certain notions of consensus. To the best of our knowledge, these are the first non-distance-rationalizability results for voting rules.

Explaining the outcome of an election is a crucial task to address, especially in the case of complex voting rules. For those without a background in social choice, understanding the result of an election with a complex voting rule can be difficult. One possible way of explaining a voting rule is by using a decision tree structure, allowing the reader to follow the reasoning behind the outcome. This work proposes a methodology for explaining voting rules using decision-tree-based classifiers. Using simple features, the classifiers can be trained to a high accuracy while maintaining a human-readable size. We test this framework with well-established voting rules -- Copeland, Kemeny-Young, Ranked Pairs and Schulze -- to generate explanations for each election's outcome. We experiment with different decision tree algorithms on a synthetic dataset to generate explanations for the election outcome. We find that Copeland and Schulze under three candidates can be learned perfectly using an optimized decision tree algorithm, while cases of other rules have high accuracy experimentally.

Various voting rules (or social choice procedures) have been proposed to select a winner from the preferences of an entire population: Plurality, veto, Borda, Minimax, Copeland, etc. Although in theory, these rules may yield drastically different outcomes, for real-world datasets, behavioral social choice analyses have found that the rules are often in perfect agreement with each other! This work attempts to give a mathematical explanation of this phenomenon. We quantify the gap between the outcomes of two voting rules by the pairwise margin between their winners. We show that for many common voting rules, the gap between them can be almost as large as 1 when the votes are unrestricted. As a counter, we study the behavior of voting rules when the vote distribution is a uniform mixture of a small number of multinomial logit distributions. This scenario corresponds to a population consisting of a small number of groups, each voting according to a latent preference ranking. We show that for any such voting profile on g groups, at least 1/2g fraction of the population prefers the winner of a Borda election to any other candidate.

The problem ofjustifying democracy arises when a society sees the need for cooperative, collective action. Collective action may be needed to solve coordination problems, public goods problems, Prisoner's Dilemmas, and other structural problems of human interaction or perhaps to realize common ideals of justice in concrete political institutions. Once the need for collective action is established, one must ask how the goals of a cooperative endeavor are to be secured. Cooperation requires that individuals, at least over a specified range of activity, pursue a joint strategy. To assure voluntary compliance in a joint venture, cooperation must be to each person's advantage. However, each person may have an incentive to induce others to cooperate and to defect from the joint strategy in the hope of enjoying the fruits of cooperation without incurring the opportunity costs of compliance. This is the essence of the Prisoner's Dilemma, and considerations of this sort suggest that if collective action is to succeed, policies or strategies formed collectively must be coercively enforceable. Coercion, however, requires justification. Because solving the problem of rational noncompliance requires that collective decisions be coercively enforceable, the rules by which collective decisions are reached require justification. Douglas Rae neatly puts the problem of justification that emerges when political solutions are coercively enforceable as follows: "Once a political community has decided which of its members are to participate directly in the making of collective policy, an important question remains: 'How many of them must agree before a policy is imposed on the community?"" This is essentially the question to which the principle of democratic rule provides an answer: by what process are collective decisions to be made? Answering Rae's question requires a normative framework. We could say that a procedure for making collective decisions is justified if and

This is an advance summary of a forthcoming article in the Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Politics. Please check back later for the full article.Narrowly understood, social choice theory is a specialized branch of applied logic and mathematics that analyzes abstract objects called preference aggregation functions, social welfare functions, and social choice functions. But more broadly, social choice theory identifies, analyzes, and evaluates rules that may be used to make collective decisions. So understood, social choice is a subfield of the social sciences that examines what may be called “voting rules” of various sorts. While social choice theory typically assumes a finite set of alternatives over which voter preferences are unrestricted, the spatial model of social choice assumes that policy alternatives can be represented by points in a space of one or more dimensions, and that voters have preferences that are plausibly shaped by this spatial structure.Social choice theory has considerable relevance for the study of legislative (as well as electoral) institutions. The concepts and tools of social choice theory make possible formal descriptions of legislative institutions such as bicameralism, parliamentary voting procedures, effects of decision rules (e.g., supramajority vs. simple majority rule and executive veto rules), sincere vs. strategic voting by legislators, agenda control, and other parliamentary maneuvers. Spatial models of social choice further enrich this analysis and raise additional questions regarding policy stability and change. Spatial models are used increasingly to guide empirical research on legislative institutions and processes.

The ideal introductory textbook to the politics of the policymaking process This textbook uses modern political economy to introduce students of political science, government, economics, and public policy to the politics of the policymaking process. The book's distinct political economy approach has two virtues. By developing general principles for thinking about policymaking, it can be applied across a range of issue areas. It also unifies the policy curriculum, offering coherence to standard methods for teaching economics and statistics, and drawing connections between fields. The book begins by exploring the normative foundations of policymaking—political theory, social choice theory, and the Paretian and utilitarian underpinnings of policy analysis. It then introduces game theoretic models of social dilemmas—externalities, coordination problems, and commitment problems—that create opportunities for policy to improve social welfare. Finally, it shows how the political process creates technological and incentive constraints on government that shape policy outcomes. Throughout, concepts and models are illustrated and reinforced with discussions of empirical evidence and case studies. This textbook is essential for all students of public policy and for anyone interested in the most current methods influencing policymaking today. Comprehensive approach to politics and policy suitable for advanced undergraduates and graduate students Models unify policy curriculum through methodological coherence Exercises at the end of every chapter Self-contained appendices cover necessary game theory Extensive discussion of cases and applications

Voting rules are powerful tools that allow multiple agents to aggregate their preferences in order to reach joint decisions. A common flaw of some voting rules, known as the no-show paradox, is that agents may obtain a more preferred outcome by abstaining an election. Whenever a rule does not suffer from this paradox, it is said to satisfy participation. In this paper, we initiate the study of participation in probabilistic social choice, i.e., for voting rules that yield probability distributions over alternatives. We consider three degrees of participation based on expected utility, the strongest of which even requires that an agent is strictly better off by participating at an election. While the latter condition is prohibitive in non-probabilistic social choice, we show that it can be met by reasonable probabilistic functions. More generally, we study to which extent participation and Pareto efficiency are compatible. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first work in this direction.

Classical results in voting theory show that strategic manipulation by voters is inevitable if a voting rule simultaneously satisfies certain desirable properties. Motivated by this, we study the relevant question of how often a voting rule is manipulable. It is well known that elections with a large number of voters are rarely manipulable under impartial culture (IC) assumption. However, the manipulability of voting rules when the number of candidates is large has hardly been addressed in the literature and our article focuses on this problem. First, we propose two properties: (i) asymptotic strategy-proofness and (ii) asymptotic collusion-proofness, with respect to new voters, which makes the two notions more relevant from the perspective of computational problem of manipulation. In addition to IC, we explore a new culture of society where all score vectors of the candidates are equally likely. This new notion has its motivation in computational social choice and we call it impartial scores culture (ISC) assumption. We study asymptotic strategy-proofness and asymptotic collusion-proofness for plurality, veto and [Formula: see text]-approval, and Borda voting rules under IC as well as ISC assumptions. Specifically, we prove bounds for the fraction of manipulable profiles when the number of candidates is large. Our results show that the size of the coalition and the tie-breaking rule play a crucial role in determining whether or not a voting rule satisfies the above two properties.

Optimal defense against election control by deleting voter groups

In the absence of obstacles, the study of mobile manipulators is mainly concerned with the coordination of locomotion and manipulation. In the presence of obstacles, one must simultaneously consider the obstacle avoidance problem and the coordination problem. This paper presents a control method for mobile manipulators that integrates an obstacle avoidance scheme with a coordination scheme. The obstacle avoidance scheme is based on superquadric potential functions. The coordination scheme is based on preferred operating regions. The controller allows a mobile manipulator to retain optimal or sub-optimal configurations while avoiding obstacles. Simulation results are presented to demonstrate the effectiveness of the control method.

An executable domain-specific modeling language for simulating organizational auction-based coordination strategies for crisis response

Vulnerability of Voting Paradoxes As a Criteria For Voting Procedure Selection

Judgment aggregation is a recent theory that combines aggregation problems previously studied by social choice theory with logic. Social choice theory is a vast subject, including not only the study of preference aggregation and voting theory but also topics like social welfare and justice. Given the tight links between judgment aggregation and preference aggregation, in this first chapter we give a concise survey on some historical aspects of preference aggregation and then introduce and motivate the more recent field of judgment aggregation. The chapter builds on [Sen99, Sen86, Bla58] for the historical overview on social choice theory, and on [KS93, Kor92] for the informal introduction to judgment aggregation.

We use preference data from the 2015 parliament election in the Austrian federal state of Styria to analyze different voting rules. An exit poll right after the election collected data on ordinal and cardinal preferences from approximately 1000 actual voters. Our analysis is threefold. First, we determine the hypothetical social outcomes under different voting rules; second, we investigate the stability of the outcomes under those rules. Finally, we provide a categorization of different types of parties and analyze the impact of certain voting rules (Plurality Rule, Plurality Run Off, Hare System, Condorcet Method, Approval Voting, Borda Rule, Evaluative Voting, and Majority Judgment) on the performances of parties in those scenarios.