HTML conversions sometimes display errors due to content that did not convert correctly from the source. This paper uses the following packages that are not yet supported by the HTML conversion tool. Feedback on these issues are not necessary; they are known and are being worked on.
failed: multitoc
Authors: achieve the best HTML results from your LaTeX submissions by following these best practices.
Plurality in Spatial Voting Games with Constant β β thanks: A preliminary version of this paper has appeared in AAAIβ21Β [FF21].
Arnold Filtser
This research was supported by the ISRAEL SCIENCE FOUNDATION (grantΒ No.Β 1042/22).
Department of Computer Science, Bar-Ilan University, Ramat Gan, Israel, [email protected]Omrit Filtser
Department of Mathmatics and Computer Science, The Open University of Israel, Raβanana, Israel, [email protected]
Abstract
Consider a set of voters, represented by a multiset in a metric space . The voters have to reach a decision β a point in . A choice is called a -plurality point for , if for any other choice it holds that . In other words, at least half of the voters βpreferβ over , when an extra factor of is taken in favor of .
For , this is equivalent to Condorcet winner, which rarely exists. The concept of -plurality was suggested by Aronov, de Berg, Gudmundsson, and Horton [TALG 2021] as a relaxation of the Condorcet criterion.
Let .
The parameter determines the amount of relaxation required in order to reach a stable decision.
Aronov et al. showed that for the Euclidean plane , and more generally, for -dimensional Euclidean space, .
In this paper, we show that for any dimension (notice that for any ). In addition, we prove that for every metric space it holds that , and show that there exists a metric space for which .
1 Introduction
When a group of agents wants to reach a joint decision, it is often natural to embed their preferences in some metric space.
The preferences of each agent are represented by a metric point (also referred to as a voter).
Each point in the metric space is a potential choice, where an agent/voter prefers choices closer to its point over farther choices.
The goal is to reach a stable decision, in the sense that no alternative choice is preferred by a majority of the voters. Such a decision is often referred to as a Condorcet winner.
More formally, consider a metric space , and a finite multiset of points from , called voters. A voter prefers a choice over a choice if .
Specifically, a point is a plurality point if for any other point ,
the number of voters preferring over is at least the number of voters preferring over , i.e., .111A more accurate name for such a point, which is also used in the literature, is Condorcet winner.
However, as this work is mainly concerned with the term -plurality point defined in [AdBGH21], we choose to keep their terminology.
The special case where is the Euclidean space, i.e., , is called spatial voting games, and was studied in the political economy context [Bla48, Dow57, Plo67, EH83].
When is the real line, a plurality point always exist, in fact, it is simply the median of (for even , there are two plurality points). When is induced by the shortest path metric of a tree graph, then again a plurality point always exists, as any separator vertex222If is the tree inducing , a separator vertex is a vertex , the removal of which will break the graph into connected components, each containing at most voters. Every tree contains a separator vertex [JOR69]. is a plurality point.
However, already in a plurality point does not always exist, and moreover, it exists only for a negligible portion of the point sets.
Indeed, for any , a plurality point for a multiset in exists if and only if all median hyperplanes333A median hyperplane for is a hyperplane such that both open half-spaces defined by it contain less than voters. for have a common intersection point (see [EH83, Plo67]). Wu et al. [WLWC14] and de Berg et al. [dBGM18] presented algorithms that determine whether such a point exist.
Recently, Aronov, de Berg, Gudmundsson, and Horton [AdBGH21], introduced a relaxation for the concept of plurality points, by defining a point to be a -plurality point, for , if for every other point , it holds that . In other words, if we scale distances towards by a factor of , then for every choice , the number of voters preferring over is at least the number of voters preferring over . Set
(1.1)
A natural question is to find or estimate these parameters for a given metric space.
Notice that as becomes larger,
a -plurality point becomes more similar to a βnormalβ plurality point, and for the two concepts are the same.
Therefore, it is interesting to know what values of are required for a given metric space in order to reach a stable decision. These bounds give an indication on the amount of relaxation that might be needed, and how reasonable it is.
Aronov et al. [AdBGH21] studied -plurality for the case of Euclidean space, i.e., . Given a specific instance , they presented an EPTAS to approximate .
For the case of the Euclidean plane (), they showed that .
Specifically, they showed that for every multiset of voters in , there exists a point such that .
Furthermore, they showed that for the case where consist of the three vertices of an equilateral triangle, it holds that .
For the general -dimensional Euclidean space , Aronov et al. showed a lower bound of .
The problem of closing the gap between and was left by Aronov et al. as a βmain open problemβ. In addition, they asked what bound on could be proved in other metric spaces.
Table 1: Summary of current
and previous results on for different metric spaces.
Our contribution.
We prove that for every metric space , it holds that . Note that Aronov et al.Β [AdBGH21] gave a lower bound of for the Euclidean metric, while our result shows a constant lower bound for any metric space.
In addition, we provide an example of a metric space for which . In fact, we show that for any (continuous) graph metric that contains a cycle (in contrast to tree metrics, for which ).
Finally, for the case of Euclidean space of arbitrary dimension , we show that .
Note that this lower bound is larger than for .
All the current and previous results are summarized in TableΒ 1.
Related work
A well known relaxation for the concept of plurality points in Euclidean space is the yolk Β [McK86, MGF89, FGM88, GW19, Mil15], which is the smallest ball intersecting every median hyperplaneΒ of . The center of the yolk is a good heuristic for a plurality point (see [MG08] for a list of properties the yolk posses).
Notice that the definition of -plurality applies for any metric space, not necessarily Euclidean as in the concept of yolk.
Another relaxation studied by Lin et al. [LWWC15] is the βminimum cost plurality problemβ. Here, given a set of voters with some cost function, the goal is to find a set of minimum cost such that contains a plurality point. They prove that the problem is NP-hard in general.
de Berg, Gudmundsson, and Mehr [dBGM18] (improving over [LWWC15]) provided an time algorithm for the case of equal costs.
A main drawback of the spatial voting model in the realistic political context was underlined by StokesΒ [Sto63]. The claim is that this model does not take into account the so-called βvalence issuesβ: qualities of the candidates such as charisma and competenceΒ [ECGV18], a strong party supportΒ [Wis06], and even the campaign spendingΒ [HLM08]. Therefore, several more realistic models have been proposed (see, e.g., [GR19, GHR11, SCSW11]). A common model is the multiplicative model which was introduced by Hollard and RossignolΒ [HR08], and is defined for two-candidate spatial voting model. This model is closely related to the concept of -plurality.
In more detail, in [HR08] there are two candidates with given valences , and they need to choose policies , respectively. A voter prefers the first candidate if (and the second if ). In their study, the valences are fixed, and the candidates are choosing polices in order to win the election. However, the information about the preferred policies of the voters (points in ) is not given in full (e.g., only their distribution is given). In contrast, in our paper all the information about the voters is known, and we are looking for the minimum valence that will allow a candidate to choose a single policy, so that he will win the election against any other policy represented by a candidate with valence .
2 General Metric Spaces
We begin by providing a (slightly) alternative definition of -plurality point.
Definition 1.
Consider a metric space , and a multiset in of voters. A point is a -plurality point if for every , we have .
The rest is similar to [AdBGH21] (and eq.Β 1.1): , , and .
The difference between the definitions is that DefinitionΒ 1 is deciding ties in favor of , that is, a voter for which , will choose over , while in the original definition from [AdBGH21], such voters remain βundecidedβ.
The parameter is equivalent in these two definitions. This happens due to the supremum used in the definitions which eliminates the difference between strong and weak inequalities (). We prove this equivalence formally in AppendixΒ A.
Consider a metric space , with a multiset of voters from , and set .
For a point and radius , denote by the (multi) subset of voters at distance at most from (i.e., those that are contained in the closed ball of radius centered at ), and let be the minimum radius such that .
The following theorem shows that a -plurality point always exists. The fact that the lower bound is constant, and even close to , demonstrates the strength of -plurality in the sense that for any set of voters and in any metric space, the multiplication factor needed for the existence of such winner is a fixed constant, and thus the amount of relaxation is bounded.
Theorem 1.
For every metric space , we have .
Proof.Β Let be the point with minimum over all , and let .
We claim that is a -plurality point.
Set , and notice that .
Consider some choice , and let
be such that . Let be the (multi) subset of voters at distance (strictly) smaller than from (i.e., those that are contained in the open ball of radius centered at ).
Consider the following cases:
β’
: For every point , as , by the triangle inequality it holds that
β’
: For every point , as , it holds that
The theorem follows as .
β
Theorem 2.
There exist a metric space such that .
Proof.Β
Consider the metric space , where denotes the set of points on a circle of perimeter and distances are measured along the arcs. More formally,
is the segment , and given two points , their distance is .
First we show that .
Consider a set of three voters , all at distance from each other. We will show that .
Assume by contradiction that there is a choice which is a -plurality point for .
Assume w.l.o.g. that (see the figure below for illustration), the other cases are symmetric.
Consider the choice lying on the arc at distance from , and from . Then and , which contradicts the assumption that is a -plurality point.
Next we show that . Consider an arbitrary (multi) subset of voters , and let be the choice with minimal radius such that .
Note that the length of the smallest arc containing voters is . In particular, by averaging arguments , and thus .
Assume w.l.o.g. that . We show that is a -plurality point. Let be any other point. We assume that , the case is symmetric.
Let be a voter that prefers over , then .
If then and , and thus . Else, we have , and so and (as otherwise the shortest path from to goes through , implying ), and therefore .
We conclude that only voters in the arc prefer over . The rest is case analysis:
β’
If , then the arc containing the set of the voters preferring over is of length . By the minimality of , it contains less than voters.
β’
If , then the arc is disjoint from the arc . Moreover, as , all the voters in the arc will prefer over .
In particular there are at least voters preferring over .
β
Given a weighted graph , consider its continuous counterpart, denoted : each edge in is represented in by a an interval of length , equipped with the line metric with endpoints . The distance between two points , denoted , is the shortest length of a geodesic path connecting to .
If contains a cycle, then we can generalize TheoremΒ 2 to .
This shows a separation between metric spaces obtained by acyclic graphs (trees) which always contain a plurality point (that is, ), and metric spaces obtained by all other graphs, for which .
Theorem 3.
For every weighted graph containing a cycle, it holds that .
Proof.
Let be a cycle in of minimum length. Assume w.l.o.g. that the length of is . We place voters on at equal distance (of ) from each other.
Assume by contradiction that there is a choice which is a -plurality point for . Furthermore, assume w.l.o.g. that is the voter closest to , and let . We proceed by case analysis, see FigureΒ 1 for an illustration:
β’
Case (1). lies on the cycle . As is a cycle of minimum length in , contains the shortest paths between all in (otherwise there wouldβve been a shorter cycle).
Following the same argument as in TheoremΒ 2, for every possible placement of , there is a choice that will win over voters, a contradiction.
β’
Case (2). , and lies on the shortest paths from to both .
Then we have and . Consider the choice lying at distance from both . Then will win two voters over , a contradiction.
β’
Case (3). , and does not lies on the shortest paths from to both . Suppose w.l.o.g. that the shortest path from to does not go through , and let .
Since is the voter closest to , there are two different paths in from to of lengths and . In particular, contains a cycle of length at most . As is the minimum cycle in , and it is of length , it follow that .
Let be the point on at distance from and from . Note that wins both the votes of and over , a contradiction.
β
3 Euclidean Space
In this section we consider the case of the Euclidean metric space, and give a bound on which is independent of and greater than for any , thus improving the lower bound of [AdBGH21] for .
As this entire section deals only with Euclidean space, in order to simplify notation, in this section (and the related AppendicesΒ B andΒ C) we will drop the subscript from (writing ), and from (writing ).
Theorem 4.
For Euclidean space of arbitrary dimension, ,
a for
We begin with the following structural observation regarding the Euclidean space.
Claim 2.
Fix a pair of choices .
For any , the set of all voters that do not -prefer over , i.e., , is contained in the open ball centered at with radius .
This claim was previously known (in fact, the ball is the βbisectorβ used in a multiplicatively weighted Voronoi diagram, see [AE84]). For completeness, we provide a full proof of the claim in AppendixΒ B, using the notations of our paper.
By the above claim we can conclude:
Corollary 3.
For any , is a -plurality point if and only if, for every other point , the open ball of radius around contains at most voters.
For the remainder of the section, is the number defined in TheoremΒ 4 and not a general parameter.
Consider a multiset of voters. Let be the point that minimizes . By scaling and shifting, we can assume w.l.o.g. that and .
If is a -plurality point, then we are done.
Otherwise, by CorollaryΒ 3 there is a point such that the open ball contains strictly more than voters. Let .
Set . We claim that is a -plurality point.
First, notice that , as otherwise the open ball of radius around contains more than voters, a contradiction to the fact that is the minimum radius of a closed ball containing at least voters.
Second, it must hold that , because otherwise
, implying that the ball and the open ball are disjoint, a contradiction to the fact that the open ball contains more than voters.
Therefore, we conclude that
(3.1)
Notice that is a -plurality point. Indeed, we couldβve fixed and have the exact same discussion leading to eq.Β 3.1. However, as no satisfies , it follows that is a -plurality point.
To prove that is a -plurality point, we will show that for every other point , the open ball of radius around contains at most voters.
We will use the following lemma.
Lemma 4.
For any point , let . Then at least one of the following hold:
1.
.
2.
.
3.
.
Before proving LemmaΒ 4, we show how it implies that is a -plurality point.
For any :
β’
If , then , and thus the open ball contains at most voters.
β’
If , then the balls and are disjoint, and thus contains at most voters.
β’
If , then the balls and are disjoint,
and thus contains at most voters.
We conclude that for every , the ball contains at most voters, and thus by CorollaryΒ 3, is a -plurality point.
β
The points lie on a single line. Given an additional point , the four points lie on a single plane. Thus, w.l.o.g. we can restrict the analysis to the Euclidean plane. Moreover, we can assume that , , for , and that where (the case of is symmetric).
Let and (see FigureΒ 2).
The boundaries of and intersect at the points (this is the reason for our choice of ).
Let , and notice that for any (this can be verified by straightforward calculations).
LemmaΒ 4 follows by the two following claims:
Claim 5.
If then .
Claim 6.
If then either
or .
β
Proof of 5.Β
The boundaries of and intersect at the points and .
We claim that for every , it holds that
(3.2)
In fact, was chosen to be the maximum number satisfying equation (3.2). A calculation showing that equation (3.2) holds is deferred to AppendixΒ C.
Consider the ball . has radius at most , and the segment is a diameter of .
Furthermore, is a chord in both and .
Recall that we assume that . If , then the chord of separates the point from the center , because (see illustration on the right).
It follows that the angle is larger than , which implies that (as is a diameter, for any point , the angle is smaller than ).
If the , a symmetric argument (using ) will imply that .
We conclude that in any case . By equation (3.2), it follows that .β
Proof of 6.Β
Assume that .
Recall that .
We show that if then , and otherwise .
First, consider the case when .
Notice that , because the boundaries of and intersect only at , and thus the intersection of with the half plane is contained in .
Let be a point on the ball with radius around such that and , and notice that (see illustration on the right).
Notice that , because
and , so we get
Since ,
it is enough to show that . From here on, we will abuse notation and refer to as . Thus we simply assume .
As and intersect at , and , it must hold that . Note that (because is on the boundary of ), and by equation (3.2), .
It thus follows that , implying that the claim holds for .
It remains to prove that the claim holds for for all .
It holds that
As ,
it holds that
where the last inequality holds444See calculation here. as by our choice of , we have for every .
The claim follows.
Next, we show that in the symmetric case, when , it holds that .
Similarly to the previous case, we can assume that , where (as this is only harder).
Now, as lies on the boundary of , by equation (3.2), it holds that .
It remains to prove that the claim holds for for some .
It holds that
Thus,
where the last inequality holds555See calculation here. as by our choice of , we have for every .
The claim follows.β
Remark 1.
Our proof of TheoremΒ 4 is based on a simple algorithm: choose a point which minimizes . If it is a -plurality point - we are done. Otherwise, there is a ball centered at a point such that the ball of radius contains more than voters. We then argue that a choice , which is a linear combination of and is a -plurality winner.
This algorithm can be naturally extended for another step. Fix some , and suppose that is not a -plurality point.
In particular, there is a point such that the ball contains more than voter points.
We then can hope to find a new choice point that will be a -plurality point. Here a natural choice of will be the center of the minimal ball containing the intersection of the three balls , , and . See illustration on the right.
Even though it is indeed possible that this approach will provide some improvement, it is unlikely to be very significant. The reason is that even for the simplest symmetric case where , , one need . For the hardest case, it is likely that a much smaller will be required.
4 Conclusion
Let .
In this paper we showed that . Further, in the Euclidean case, for arbitrary dimension , by combining our results with [AdBGH21], we know that .
The main question left open is closing these two gaps.
Our conjecture is that the upper bounds are tight, since when , a plurality point must βwinβ of the overall vote. This task can only become easier once the number of voters increase.
Conjecture 1.
, and for every .
If indeed for every dimension , then it implies that the concept of -plurality might be very useful as a relaxation for Condorcet winner. Informally, it shows that the amount of βcompromiseβ that we need to make in order to find a plurality point in any Euclidean space is relatively small.
Acknowledgments.
After sharing our proof of TheoremΒ 1 with the authors of [AdBGH21], Mark de Berg proved a weaker version of TheoremΒ 4, and generously allowed us to publish our proof which is based on his observation. Specifically, de Berg proved that .666Following the lines of the proof of TheoremΒ 4, for , the point is a -plurality point, as
no satisfies equation (3.1).
The authors would also like to thank Boris Aronov, Nimrod Talmon, and an anonymous reviewer, for providing useful comments on the manuscript.
References
[AdBGH21]
B.Β Aronov, M.Β deΒ Berg, J.Β Gudmundsson, and M.Β Horton.
On -plurality points in spatial voting games.
ACM Trans. Algorithms, 17(3):24:1β24:21,
2021, doi:10.1145/3459097.
[AE84]
F.Β Aurenhammer and H.Β Edelsbrunner.
An optimal algorithm for constructing the weighted voronoi diagram in
the plane.
Pattern recognition, 17(2):251β257,
1984.
[Bla48]
D.Β Black.
On the rationale of group decision-making.
Journal of political economy, 56(1):23β34,
1948.
[dBGM18]
M.Β deΒ Berg, J.Β Gudmundsson, and M.Β Mehr.
Faster algorithms for computing plurality points.
ACM Trans. Algorithms, 14(3):36:1β36:23, 2018.
prliminary version appeared in the proceedings of SOCG 16, doi:10.1145/3186990.
[Dow57]
A.Β Downs.
An economic theory of political action in a democracy.
Journal of political economy, 65(2):135β150,
1957.
[ECGV18]
H.Β Evrenk, R.Β Congleton, B.Β Grofman, and S.Β Voigt.
Valence politics.
The Oxford Handbook of Public Choice, Volume 1, page 266,
2018.
[EH83]
J.Β Enelow and M.Β Hinisch.
On Plottβs pairwise symmetry condition for majority rule
equilibrium.
Public Choice, 40(3):317β321,
January 1983, doi:10.1007/BF00114527.
[FF21]
A.Β Filtser and O.Β Filtser.
Condorcet relaxation in spatial voting.
In Thirty-Fifth AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence,
AAAI 2021, Thirty-Third Conference on Innovative Applications of Artificial
Intelligence, IAAI 2021, The Eleventh Symposium on Educational Advances in
Artificial Intelligence, EAAI 2021, Virtual Event, February 2-9, 2021,
pages 5407β5414. AAAI Press,
2021.
[FGM88]
S.Β L. Feld, B.Β Grofman, and N.Β Miller.
Centripetal forces in spatial voting: On the size of the yolk.
Public Choice, 59(1):37β50,
1988, doi:10.1007/BF00119448.
[GHR11]
F.Β Gouret, G.Β Hollard, and S.Β Rossignol.
An empirical analysis of valence in electoral competition.
Social Choice and Welfare, 37(2):309β340,
2011.
[GR19]N.Β Giansiracusa and C.Β Ricciardi.
Computational geometry and the us supreme court.
Mathematical Social Sciences, 98:1β9,
2019.
[GW19]
J.Β Gudmundsson and S.Β Wong.
Computing the yolk in spatial voting games without computing median
lines.
In The Thirty-Third AAAI Conference on Artificial
Intelligence, AAAI 2019, The Thirty-First Innovative Applications of
Artificial Intelligence Conference, IAAI 2019, The Ninth AAAI Symposium
on Educational Advances in Artificial Intelligence, EAAI 2019, Honolulu,
Hawaii, USA, January 27 - February 1, 2019, pages 2012β2019,
2019, doi:10.1609/aaai.v33i01.33012012.
[HLM08]
H.Β Herrera, D.Β K. Levine, and C.Β Martinelli.
Policy platforms, campaign spending and voter participation.
Journal of Public Economics, 92(3-4):501β513,
2008.
[HR08]
G.Β Hollard and S.Β Rossignol.
An alternative approach to valence advantage in spatial competition.
Journal of Public Economic Theory, 10(3):441β454,
2008.
[JOR69]
C.Β JORDAN.
Sur les assemblages de lignes.
JOURNAL FΓR DIE REINE UND ANGEWANDTE MATHEMATIK,
70:185β190,
1869.
[LWWC15]
W.Β Lin, Y.Β Wu, H.Β Wang, and K.Β Chao.
Forming plurality at minimum cost.
In M.Β S. Rahman and E.Β Tomita, editors, WALCOM: Algorithms and
Computation - 9th International Workshop, WALCOM 2015, Dhaka, Bangladesh,
February 26-28, 2015. Proceedings, volume 8973 of Lecture Notes in
Computer Science, pages 77β88. Springer,
2015, doi:10.1007/978-3-319-15612-5_8.
[McK86]
R.Β D. McKelvey.
Covering, dominance, and institution-free properties of social
choice.
American Journal of Political Science, 30(2):283β314,
1986.
[MG08]
N.Β R. Miller and J.Β Godfrey.
On the size and location of the yolk in spatial voting games: Results
using cybersenate software.
2008.
[MGF89]
N.Β R. Miller, B.Β Grofman, and S.Β L. Feld.
The geometry of majority rule.
Journal of Theoretical Politics, 1(4):379β406,
1989, doi:10.1177/0951692889001004001.
[Mil15]
N.Β R. Miller.
The spatial model of social choice and voting.
In J.Β C. Heckelman and N.Β R. Miller, editors, Handbook of
Social Choice and Voting, Chapters, chapterΒ 10, pages 163β181. Edward
Elgar Publishing,
2015.
[Plo67]
C.Β R. Plott.
A notion of equilibrium and its possibility under majority rule.
The American Economic Review, 57(4):787β806,
1967.
[SCSW11]
D.Β Sanders, H.Β D. Clarke, M.Β C. Stewart, and P.Β Whiteley.
Downs, stokes and the dynamics of electoral choice.
British Journal of Political Science, pages 287β314,
2011.
[Sto63]
D.Β E. Stokes.
Spatial models of party competition.
The American Political Science Review, 57(2):368β377,
1963.
[Wis06]
A.Β E. Wiseman.
A theory of partisan support and entry deterrence in electoral
competition.
Journal of Theoretical Politics, 18(2):123β158,
2006.
[WLWC14]
Y.Β Wu, W.Β Lin, H.Β Wang, and K.Β Chao.
The generalized popular condensation problem.
In Algorithms and Computation - 25th International Symposium,
ISAAC 2014, Jeonju, Korea, December 15-17, 2014, Proceedings, pages
606β617,
2014, doi:10.1007/978-3-319-13075-0_48.
Appendix A Equivalence between the definitions of -plurality point
We will use to denote the definition given in [AdBGH21] (and in our introduction), and to denote our definition from DefinitionΒ 1. We will show that for every metric space , voter multiset in , and point , it holds that . The equivalence between the other parameters will follow.
Fix . There are two directions for the proof:
β’
. Assume by contradiction that , so thus there exists some .
By the definition of , for every it holds that
. Clearly, for the weak inequality we get , and thus , a contradiction.
β’
. Assume by contradiction that , so there exists such that .
By the definition of , there exists
such that for every , we have .
Let . Then for every , we have ,
implying that .
Clearly, for , it holds that .
It follows that is an -plurality point, a contradiction.
Set .
We will show that for our choice of , and for every , it holds that , thus proving equation (3.2). We have
which equals to only for .777See calculation here.
As we restrict our attention to , it follows that
once we fixed , the functoin has a maximum at (note that for every ).
It thus will be enough to prove that
This expression could be βmassagedβ into a degree 4 polynomial.
Thus we can obtain an exact solution. In particular, for every ,888See calculation here.
it holds that , as required.