-
Learning to Manipulate under Limited Information
Authors:
Wesley H. Holliday,
Alexander Kristoffersen,
Eric Pacuit
Abstract:
By classic results in social choice theory, any reasonable preferential voting method sometimes gives individuals an incentive to report an insincere preference. The extent to which different voting methods are more or less resistant to such strategic manipulation has become a key consideration for comparing voting methods. Here we measure resistance to manipulation by whether neural networks of v…
▽ More
By classic results in social choice theory, any reasonable preferential voting method sometimes gives individuals an incentive to report an insincere preference. The extent to which different voting methods are more or less resistant to such strategic manipulation has become a key consideration for comparing voting methods. Here we measure resistance to manipulation by whether neural networks of varying sizes can learn to profitably manipulate a given voting method in expectation, given different types of limited information about how other voters will vote. We trained over 70,000 neural networks of 26 sizes to manipulate against 8 different voting methods, under 6 types of limited information, in committee-sized elections with 5-21 voters and 3-6 candidates. 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, despite being quite profitably manipulated by an ideal manipulator with full information. For the two probability models for elections that we use, the overall least manipulable of the 8 methods we study are Condorcet methods, namely Minimax and Split Cycle.
△ Less
Submitted 15 April, 2024; v1 submitted 29 January, 2024;
originally announced January 2024.
-
An impossibility theorem concerning positive involvement in voting
Authors:
Wesley H. Holliday
Abstract:
In social choice theory with ordinal preferences, a voting method satisfies the axiom of positive involvement if adding to a preference profile a voter who ranks an alternative uniquely first cannot cause that alternative to go from winning to losing. In this note, we prove a new impossibility theorem concerning this axiom: there is no ordinal voting method satisfying positive involvement that als…
▽ More
In social choice theory with ordinal preferences, a voting method satisfies the axiom of positive involvement if adding to a preference profile a voter who ranks an alternative uniquely first cannot cause that alternative to go from winning to losing. In this note, we prove a new impossibility theorem concerning this axiom: there is no ordinal voting method satisfying positive involvement that also satisfies the Condorcet winner and loser criteria, resolvability, and a common invariance property for Condorcet methods, namely that the choice of winners depends only on the ordering of majority margins by size.
△ Less
Submitted 25 February, 2024; v1 submitted 10 January, 2024;
originally announced January 2024.
-
An extension of May's Theorem to three alternatives: axiomatizing Minimax voting
Authors:
Wesley H. Holliday,
Eric Pacuit
Abstract:
May's Theorem [K. O. May, Econometrica 20 (1952) 680-684] characterizes majority voting on two alternatives as the unique preferential voting method satisfying several simple axioms. Here we show that by adding some desirable axioms to May's axioms, we can uniquely determine how to vote on three alternatives (setting aside tiebreaking). In particular, we add two axioms stating that the voting meth…
▽ More
May's Theorem [K. O. May, Econometrica 20 (1952) 680-684] characterizes majority voting on two alternatives as the unique preferential voting method satisfying several simple axioms. Here we show that by adding some desirable axioms to May's axioms, we can uniquely determine how to vote on three alternatives (setting aside tiebreaking). In particular, we add two axioms stating that the voting method should mitigate spoiler effects and avoid the so-called strong no show paradox. We prove a theorem stating that any preferential voting method satisfying our enlarged set of axioms, which includes some weak homogeneity and preservation axioms, must choose from among the Minimax winners in all three-alternative elections. When applied to more than three alternatives, our axioms also distinguish Minimax from other known voting methods that coincide with or refine Minimax for three alternatives.
△ Less
Submitted 6 July, 2024; v1 submitted 21 December, 2023;
originally announced December 2023.
-
An Axiomatic Characterization of Split Cycle
Authors:
Yifeng Ding,
Wesley H. Holliday,
Eric Pacuit
Abstract:
A number of rules for resolving majority cycles in elections have been proposed in the literature. Recently, Holliday and Pacuit (Journal of Theoretical Politics 33 (2021) 475-524) axiomatically characterized the class of rules refined by one such cycle-resolving rule, dubbed Split Cycle: in each majority cycle, discard the majority preferences with the smallest majority margin. They showed that a…
▽ More
A number of rules for resolving majority cycles in elections have been proposed in the literature. Recently, Holliday and Pacuit (Journal of Theoretical Politics 33 (2021) 475-524) axiomatically characterized the class of rules refined by one such cycle-resolving rule, dubbed Split Cycle: in each majority cycle, discard the majority preferences with the smallest majority margin. They showed that any rule satisfying five standard axioms plus a weakening of Arrow's Independence of Irrelevant Alternatives (IIA), called Coherent IIA, is refined by Split Cycle. In this paper, we go further and show that Split Cycle is the only rule satisfying the axioms of Holliday and Pacuit together with two additional axioms, which characterize the class of rules that refine Split Cycle: Coherent Defeat and Positive Involvement in Defeat. Coherent Defeat states that any majority preference not occurring in a cycle is retained, while Positive Involvement in Defeat is closely related to the well-known axiom of Positive Involvement (as in J. Perez, Social Choice and Welfare 18 (2001) 601-616). We characterize Split Cycle not only as a collective choice rule but also as a social choice correspondence, over both profiles of linear ballots and profiles of ballots allowing ties.
△ Less
Submitted 28 June, 2024; v1 submitted 22 October, 2022;
originally announced October 2022.
-
Impossibility theorems involving weakenings of expansion consistency and resoluteness in voting
Authors:
Wesley H. Holliday,
Chase Norman,
Eric Pacuit,
Saam Zahedian
Abstract:
A fundamental principle of individual rational choice is Sen's $γ$ axiom, also known as expansion consistency, stating that any alternative chosen from each of two menus must be chosen from the union of the menus. Expansion consistency can also be formulated in the setting of social choice. In voting theory, it states that any candidate chosen from two fields of candidates must be chosen from the…
▽ More
A fundamental principle of individual rational choice is Sen's $γ$ axiom, also known as expansion consistency, stating that any alternative chosen from each of two menus must be chosen from the union of the menus. Expansion consistency can also be formulated in the setting of social choice. In voting theory, it states that any candidate chosen from two fields of candidates must be chosen from the combined field of candidates. An important special case of the axiom is binary expansion consistency, which states that any candidate chosen from an initial field of candidates and chosen in a head-to-head match with a new candidate must also be chosen when the new candidate is added to the field, thereby ruling out spoiler effects. In this paper, we study the tension between this weakening of expansion consistency and weakenings of resoluteness, an axiom demanding the choice of a single candidate in any election. As is well known, resoluteness is inconsistent with basic fairness conditions on social choice, namely anonymity and neutrality. Here we prove that even significant weakenings of resoluteness, which are consistent with anonymity and neutrality, are inconsistent with binary expansion consistency. The proofs make use of SAT solving, with the correctness of a SAT encoding formally verified in the Lean Theorem Prover, as well as a strategy for generalizing impossibility theorems obtained for special types of voting methods (namely majoritarian and pairwise voting methods) to impossibility theorems for arbitrary voting methods. This proof strategy may be of independent interest for its potential applicability to other impossibility theorems in social choice.
△ Less
Submitted 26 March, 2023; v1 submitted 14 August, 2022;
originally announced August 2022.
-
Esca** Arrow's Theorem: The Advantage-Standard Model
Authors:
Wesley H. Holliday,
Mikayla Kelley
Abstract:
There is an extensive literature in social choice theory studying the consequences of weakening the assumptions of Arrow's Impossibility Theorem. Much of this literature suggests that there is no escape from Arrow-style impossibility theorems, while remaining in an ordinal preference setting, unless one drastically violates the Independence of Irrelevant Alternatives (IIA). In this paper, we prese…
▽ More
There is an extensive literature in social choice theory studying the consequences of weakening the assumptions of Arrow's Impossibility Theorem. Much of this literature suggests that there is no escape from Arrow-style impossibility theorems, while remaining in an ordinal preference setting, unless one drastically violates the Independence of Irrelevant Alternatives (IIA). In this paper, we present a more positive outlook. We propose a model of comparing candidates in elections, which we call the Advantage-Standard (AS) model. The requirement that a collective choice rule (CCR) be representable by the AS model captures a key insight of IIA but is weaker than IIA; yet it is stronger than what is known in the literature as weak IIA (two profiles alike on $x,y$ cannot have opposite strict social preferences on $x$ and $y$). In addition to motivating violations of IIA, the AS model makes intelligible violations of another Arrovian assumption: the negative transitivity of the strict social preference relation $P$. While previous literature shows that only weakening IIA to weak IIA or only weakening negative transitivity of $P$ to acyclicity still leads to impossibility theorems, we show that jointly weakening IIA to AS representability and weakening negative transitivity of $P$ leads to no such impossibility theorems. Indeed, we show that several appealing CCRs are AS representable, including even transitive CCRs.
△ Less
Submitted 30 June, 2024; v1 submitted 2 August, 2021;
originally announced August 2021.
-
Stable Voting
Authors:
Wesley H. Holliday,
Eric Pacuit
Abstract:
We propose a new single-winner voting system using ranked ballots: Stable Voting. The motivating principle of Stable Voting is that if a candidate A would win without another candidate B in the election, and A beats B in a head-to-head majority comparison, then A should still win in the election with B included (unless there is another candidate A' who has the same kind of claim to winning, in whi…
▽ More
We propose a new single-winner voting system using ranked ballots: Stable Voting. The motivating principle of Stable Voting is that if a candidate A would win without another candidate B in the election, and A beats B in a head-to-head majority comparison, then A should still win in the election with B included (unless there is another candidate A' who has the same kind of claim to winning, in which case a tiebreaker may choose between such candidates). We call this principle Stability for Winners (with Tiebreaking). Stable Voting satisfies this principle while also having a remarkable ability to avoid tied outcomes in elections even with small numbers of voters.
△ Less
Submitted 11 February, 2023; v1 submitted 1 August, 2021;
originally announced August 2021.
-
Measuring Violations of Positive Involvement in Voting
Authors:
Wesley H. Holliday,
Eric Pacuit
Abstract:
In the context of computational social choice, we study voting methods that assign a set of winners to each profile of voter preferences. A voting method satisfies the property of positive involvement (PI) if for any election in which a candidate x would be among the winners, adding another voter to the election who ranks x first does not cause x to lose. Surprisingly, a number of standard voting…
▽ More
In the context of computational social choice, we study voting methods that assign a set of winners to each profile of voter preferences. A voting method satisfies the property of positive involvement (PI) if for any election in which a candidate x would be among the winners, adding another voter to the election who ranks x first does not cause x to lose. Surprisingly, a number of standard voting methods violate this natural property. In this paper, we investigate different ways of measuring the extent to which a voting method violates PI, using computer simulations. We consider the probability (under different probability models for preferences) of PI violations in randomly drawn profiles vs. profile-coalition pairs (involving coalitions of different sizes). We argue that in order to choose between a voting method that satisfies PI and one that does not, we should consider the probability of PI violation conditional on the voting methods choosing different winners. We should also relativize the probability of PI violation to what we call voter potency, the probability that a voter causes a candidate to lose. Although absolute frequencies of PI violations may be low, after this conditioning and relativization, we see that under certain voting methods that violate PI, much of a voter's potency is turned against them - in particular, against their desire to see their favorite candidate elected.
△ Less
Submitted 21 June, 2021;
originally announced June 2021.
-
Axioms for Defeat in Democratic Elections
Authors:
Wesley H. Holliday,
Eric Pacuit
Abstract:
We propose six axioms concerning when one candidate should defeat another in a democratic election involving two or more candidates. Five of the axioms are widely satisfied by known voting procedures. The sixth axiom is a weakening of Kenneth Arrow's famous condition of the Independence of Irrelevant Alternatives (IIA). We call this weakening Coherent IIA. We prove that the five axioms plus Cohere…
▽ More
We propose six axioms concerning when one candidate should defeat another in a democratic election involving two or more candidates. Five of the axioms are widely satisfied by known voting procedures. The sixth axiom is a weakening of Kenneth Arrow's famous condition of the Independence of Irrelevant Alternatives (IIA). We call this weakening Coherent IIA. We prove that the five axioms plus Coherent IIA single out a method of determining defeats studied in our recent work: Split Cycle. In particular, Split Cycle provides the most resolute definition of defeat among any satisfying the six axioms for democratic defeat. In addition, we analyze how Split Cycle escapes Arrow's Impossibility Theorem and related impossibility results.
△ Less
Submitted 12 October, 2023; v1 submitted 15 August, 2020;
originally announced August 2020.
-
Split Cycle: A New Condorcet Consistent Voting Method Independent of Clones and Immune to Spoilers
Authors:
Wesley H. Holliday,
Eric Pacuit
Abstract:
We propose a Condorcet consistent voting method that we call Split Cycle. Split Cycle belongs to the small family of known voting methods satisfying the anti-vote-splitting criterion of independence of clones. In this family, only Split Cycle satisfies a new criterion we call immunity to spoilers, which concerns adding candidates to elections, as well as the known criteria of positive involvement…
▽ More
We propose a Condorcet consistent voting method that we call Split Cycle. Split Cycle belongs to the small family of known voting methods satisfying the anti-vote-splitting criterion of independence of clones. In this family, only Split Cycle satisfies a new criterion we call immunity to spoilers, which concerns adding candidates to elections, as well as the known criteria of positive involvement and negative involvement, which concern adding voters to elections. Thus, in contrast to other clone-independent methods, Split Cycle mitigates both "spoiler effects" and "strong no show paradoxes."
△ Less
Submitted 28 November, 2023; v1 submitted 5 April, 2020;
originally announced April 2020.
