Recall: Properties of ranking rules. Recall: Properties of ranking rules. Kenneth Arrow. Recall: Properties of ranking rules. Strategically vulnerable

Similar documents
Arrow s Impossibility Theorem

1.6 Arrow s Impossibility Theorem

Fairness Criteria. Majority Criterion: If a candidate receives a majority of the first place votes, that candidate should win the election.

Fairness Criteria. Review: Election Methods

Voting Criteria: Majority Criterion Condorcet Criterion Monotonicity Criterion Independence of Irrelevant Alternatives Criterion

The Impossibilities of Voting

Measuring Fairness. Paul Koester () MA 111, Voting Theory September 7, / 25

The search for a perfect voting system. MATH 105: Contemporary Mathematics. University of Louisville. October 31, 2017

Head-to-Head Winner. To decide if a Head-to-Head winner exists: Every candidate is matched on a one-on-one basis with every other candidate.

(67686) Mathematical Foundations of AI June 18, Lecture 6

Social Choice & Mechanism Design

The Mathematics of Voting. The Mathematics of Voting

Desirable properties of social choice procedures. We now outline a number of properties that are desirable for these social choice procedures:

Voting: Issues, Problems, and Systems, Continued

Exercises For DATA AND DECISIONS. Part I Voting

Chapter 1 Practice Test Questions

Write all responses on separate paper. Use complete sentences, charts and diagrams, as appropriate.

Elections with Only 2 Alternatives

Section Voting Methods. Copyright 2013, 2010, 2007, Pearson, Education, Inc.

Chapter 10. The Manipulability of Voting Systems. For All Practical Purposes: Effective Teaching. Chapter Briefing

Voting rules: (Dixit and Skeath, ch 14) Recall parkland provision decision:

Chapter 9: Social Choice: The Impossible Dream Lesson Plan

Mathematical Thinking. Chapter 9 Voting Systems

The Mathematics of Voting

12.2 Defects in Voting Methods

Rock the Vote or Vote The Rock

Math116Chap1VotingPart2.notebook January 12, Part II. Other Methods of Voting and Other "Fairness Criteria"

Mathematics and Social Choice Theory. Topic 4 Voting methods with more than 2 alternatives. 4.1 Social choice procedures

Introduction to Theory of Voting. Chapter 2 of Computational Social Choice by William Zwicker

Topics on the Border of Economics and Computation December 18, Lecture 8

9.3 Other Voting Systems for Three or More Candidates

Section Voting Methods. Copyright 2013, 2010, 2007, Pearson, Education, Inc.

Voting System: elections

CSC304 Lecture 14. Begin Computational Social Choice: Voting 1: Introduction, Axioms, Rules. CSC304 - Nisarg Shah 1

Social welfare functions

The Manipulability of Voting Systems. Check off these skills when you feel that you have mastered them.

Voting Protocols. Introduction. Social choice: preference aggregation Our settings. Voting protocols are examples of social choice mechanisms

Explaining the Impossible: Kenneth Arrow s Nobel Prize Winning Theorem on Elections

Economics 470 Some Notes on Simple Alternatives to Majority Rule

answers to some of the sample exercises : Public Choice

Algorithms, Games, and Networks February 7, Lecture 8

VOTING SYSTEMS AND ARROW S THEOREM

Social Choice: The Impossible Dream. Check off these skills when you feel that you have mastered them.

Computational Social Choice: Spring 2007

Voting Methods

MATH4999 Capstone Projects in Mathematics and Economics Topic 3 Voting methods and social choice theory

Chapter 4: Voting and Social Choice.

Intro to Contemporary Math

Notes for Session 7 Basic Voting Theory and Arrow s Theorem

Voting Criteria April

Lecture 16: Voting systems

CS 886: Multiagent Systems. Fall 2016 Kate Larson

MATH 1340 Mathematics & Politics

Voting: Issues, Problems, and Systems, Continued. Voting II 1/27

Make the Math Club Great Again! The Mathematics of Democratic Voting

Introduction to the Theory of Voting

The Mathematics of Voting

Simple methods for single winner elections

Introduction: The Mathematics of Voting

Sect 13.2 Flaws of Voting Methods

Many Social Choice Rules

Mathematics of Voting Systems. Tanya Leise Mathematics & Statistics Amherst College

Math Circle Voting Methods Practice. March 31, 2013

Approaches to Voting Systems

SOCIAL CHOICES (Voting Methods) THE PROBLEM. Social Choice and Voting. Terminologies

Today s plan: Section : Plurality with Elimination Method and a second Fairness Criterion: The Monotocity Criterion.

Game Theory. Jiang, Bo ( 江波 )

CSC304 Lecture 16. Voting 3: Axiomatic, Statistical, and Utilitarian Approaches to Voting. CSC304 - Nisarg Shah 1

Arrow s Impossibility Theorem on Social Choice Systems

Constructing voting paradoxes with logic and symmetry

Social Choice. CSC304 Lecture 21 November 28, Allan Borodin Adapted from Craig Boutilier s slides

Math for Liberal Studies

Democratic Rules in Context

Public Choice. Slide 1

How should we count the votes?

Name Date I. Consider the preference schedule in an election with 5 candidates.

: It is mathematically impossible for a democratic voting method to satisfy all of the fairness criteria was proven in 1949.

Math for Liberal Arts MAT 110: Chapter 12 Notes

Rationality & Social Choice. Dougherty, POLS 8000

Voting. Hannu Nurmi. Game Theory and Models of Voting. Public Choice Research Centre and Department of Political Science University of Turku

Section 3: The Borda Count Method. Example 4: Using the preference schedule from Example 3, identify the Borda candidate.

Main idea: Voting systems matter.

MULTIPLE CHOICE. Choose the one alternative that best completes the statement or answers the question.

In this lecture we will cover the following voting methods and fairness criterion.

The actual midterm will probably not be multiple choice. You should also study your notes, the textbook, and the homework.

Lecture 11. Voting. Outline

PROBLEM SET #2: VOTING RULES

Voting with Bidirectional Elimination

that changes needed to be made when electing their Presidential nominee. Iowa, at the time had a

The mathematics of voting, power, and sharing Part 1

Rationality of Voting and Voting Systems: Lecture II

c M. J. Wooldridge, used by permission/updated by Simon Parsons, Spring

Constructing voting paradoxes with logic and symmetry Teacher s Notes

Safe Votes, Sincere Votes, and Strategizing

Dictatorships Are Not the Only Option: An Exploration of Voting Theory

Strategy and Effectiveness: An Analysis of Preferential Ballot Voting Methods

Grade 6 Math Circles Winter February 27/28 The Mathematics of Voting - Solutions

Voting: Issues, Problems, and Systems. Voting I 1/36

In deciding upon a winner, there is always one main goal: to reflect the preferences of the people in the most fair way possible.

Trying to please everyone. Ulle Endriss Institute for Logic, Language and Computation University of Amsterdam

Transcription:

Outline for today Stat155 Game Theory Lecture 26: More Voting. Peter Bartlett December 1, 2016 1 / 31 2 / 31 Recall: Voting and Ranking Recall: Properties of ranking rules Assumptions There is a set Γ of candidates. Voter i has a preference relation i defined on candidates that is: 1 Complete: A B Γ, A i B or B i A. 2 Transitive: A, B, C Γ, A i B and B i C implies A i C. Definitions A voting rule f maps a preference profile π = ( 1,..., n ) to a winner from Γ. A ranking rule R maps a preference profile π = ( 1,..., n ) to a social ranking on Γ, which is another complete, transitive preference relation. Unanimity A ranking rule R has the unanimity property if, for all i, A i B, then = R( 1,..., n ) satisfies A B. If all voters prefer candidate A over B, candidate A should be ranked above B. 3 / 31 4 / 31

Recall: Properties of ranking rules Recall: Properties of ranking rules Strategically vulnerable A ranking rule R is strategically vulnerable if, for some preference profile ( 1,..., n ), some voter i and some candidates A, B Γ, := R( 1,..., i,..., n ), := R( 1,..., i,..., n ), A i B, B A, but A B. This means that Voter i has a preference relation i, but by stating an alternative preference relation i, it can swap the ranking rule s preference between A and B to make it consistent with i. Independence of irrelevant alternatives (IIA) Consider two different voter preference profiles ( 1,..., n ) and ( 1,..., n), and define = R( 1,..., n ) and = R( 1,..., n). For A, B Γ, if, for all i, A i B iff A i B, then A B iff A B. The ranking rule s relative rankings of candidates A and B should depend only on the voters relative rankings of these two candidates. 5 / 31 6 / 31 Recall: Properties of ranking rules Kenneth Arrow Theorem Any ranking rule R that violates IIA is strategically vulnerable. Definition A ranking rule R is a dictatorship if there is a voter i such that, for any preference profile ( 1,..., n ), = R( 1,..., n ) has A B iff A i B. Arrow s Impossibility Theorem For Γ 3, any ranking rule R that satisfies both IIA and unanimity is a dictatorship. Thus, any ranking rule R that satisfies unanimity and is not strategically vulnerable is a dictatorship. Hence, strategic vulnerability is inevitable. OR and Economics, Stanford. Nobel Prize for Economics, 1972. Founder of modern social choice theory. (www.nationalmedals.org) 7 / 31 8 / 31

Outline Strategic vulnerability Recall: Ranking A ranking rule R is strategically vulnerable if, for some preference profile ( 1,..., n ), some voter i and some candidates A, B Γ, := R( 1,..., i,..., n ), := R( 1,..., i,..., n ), A i B, B A, but A B. Voting A voting rule f is strategically vulnerable if, for some preference profile ( 1,..., n ), some voter i and some candidates A, B Γ, π := ( 1,..., i,..., n ), π := ( 1,..., i,..., n ), A i B, B = f (π), but A = f (π ). Voter i, by incorrectly reporting preferences, can change the outcome to match his true preferences. 9 / 31 10 / 31 Dictatorship Another impossibility theorem Ranking A ranking rule R is a dictatorship if there is a voter i such that, for any preference profile ( 1,..., n ), = R( 1,..., n ) has A B iff A i B. Voter i determines the outcome. Voting A voting rule f is a dictatorship if there is a voter i such that, for any preference profile ( 1,..., n ), A = f ( 1,..., n ) iff for all B A, A i B. Recall: Arrow s Impossibility Theorem For Γ 3, any ranking rule R that satisfies unanimity and is not strategically vulnerable is a dictatorship. A voting rule f maps from the voters preference profile π to the winner Γ. We say f is onto Γ if, for all candidates A Γ, there is a π satisfying f (π) = A. If f is not onto Γ, some candidate is excluded from winning. Gibbard-Satterthwaite Theorem For Γ 3, any voting rule f that is onto Γ and is not strategically vulnerable is a dictatorship. 11 / 31 12 / 31

Gibbard-Satterthwaite theorem Gibbard-Satterthwaite theorem A B if f (π {A,B} ) = A, B A if f (π {A,B} ) = B. Proof By contradiction: Use f to construct a ranking rule that violates Arrow s Theorem. Suppose f is: onto Γ, not strategically vulnerable, not a dictatorship. Define = R(π) via A B if f (π {A,B} ) = A, B A if f (π {A,B} ) = B, where π S maintains the order of candidates in S but moves them above all other candidates in all voters preferences. Then we can check that: 1 If f is onto Γ and not strategically vulnerable, then for all S Γ, f (π S ) S so is complete. (Otherwise, in the path from a π f 1 (S) to π S, some voter switch would demonstrate a strategic vulnerability.) 2 Also, is transitive. (The same argument shows that f (π {A,B,C} ) = A implies A B and A C, so cycles are impossible.) 3 R satisfies unanimity (A i B implies π {A,B} = (π {A,B} ) {A}, so A B.) 4 R satisfies IIA. (Similar argument.) 5 Because f is not a dictatorship, R is not a dictatorship. 6 But Arrow s Theorem shows that this R cannot exist. 13 / 31 14 / 31 Gibbard-Satterthwaite theorem Outline Theorem For Γ 3, any voting rule f that is onto Γ and is not strategically vulnerable is a dictatorship. 15 / 31 16 / 31

Symmetry: Permuting voters does not affect the outcome. Monotonicity: Changing one voter s preferences by promoting candidate A without changing any other preferences should not change the outcome from A winning to A not winning. Condorcet winner criterion: If a candidate is majority-preferred in pairwise comparisons with any other candidate, then that candidate wins. Condorcet loser criterion: If a candidate is preferred by a minority of voters in pairwise comparisons with all other candidates, then that candidate should not win. Smith criterion The winner always comes from the Smith set (the smallest nonempty set of candidates that are majority-preferred in pairwise comparisons with any candidate outside the set). Reversal symmetry: If A wins for some voter preference profile, A does not win when the preferences of all voters are reversed. Cancellation of ranking cycles: If a set of Γ voters have preferences that are cyclic shifts of each other (e.g., A 1 B 1 C, B 2 C 2 A, C 3 A 3 B), then removing these voters does not affect the outcome. Cancellation of opposing rankings: If two voters have reversed preferences, then removing these voters does not affect the outcome. Consistency: If A wins for voter preference profiles π and π, A also wins when these voter preference profiles are combined. Participation: If A wins for some voter preference profile, then adding a voter with A B does not change the winner from A to B. Outline 17 / 31 18 / 31 Instant runoff voting Voters provide a ranking of the candidates. If only one candidate remains, return that candidate. Otherwise: 1 Eliminate the candidate that is top-ranked by the fewest voters. 2 Drop that candidate s preferences from voters rankings. 3 Use instant runoff voting on the remaining candidates with the reassigned preferences. Symmetry? (Permuting voters does not affect the outcome.) 19 / 31 20 / 31

Monotonicity? (Changing one voter s preferences by promoting candidate A without changing any other preferences does not change the outcome from A winning to A not winning.) 45% B C A 25% C A B C eliminated in round 1. 35% B C A 10% C B A 25% C A B A eliminated in round 1. B wins. When 10% of voters move B above C, it changes the outcome from B winning to A winning. Condorcet winner criterion? (If a candidate is majority-preferred in pairwise comparisons with any other candidate, then that candidate wins.) 45% C B A 25% B A C B eliminated in round 1. B is preferred over any other candidate. but 21 / 31 22 / 31 Condorcet loser criterion? (If a candidate is preferred by a minority of voters in pairwise comparisons with all other candidates, then that candidate should not win.) Smith criterion? (The winner always comes from the Smith set the smallest nonempty set of candidates that are majority-preferred in pairwise comparisons with any candidate outside the set.) 45% C B A 25% B A C B eliminated in round 1. The Smith set is {B}. (Notice that a rule that violates the Condorcet winner criterion violates the Smith criterion for some preference profile with a singleton Smith set.) 23 / 31 24 / 31

Reversal symmetry? (If A wins for some voter preference profile, A does not win when the preferences of all voters are reversed. 45% B C A 25% C A B 30% C B A 45% A C B 25% B A C C eliminated in round 1. B eliminated in round 1. When the preferences of all voters are reversed, A still wins. Cancellation of ranking cycles? Cancellation of opposing rankings? Consistency? Participation? Outline 25 / 31 26 / 31 Borda count Voters rank candidates from 1 to N (where N = Γ ). A candidate that is ranked in ith position is assigned N i + 1 points. The candidate with the largest total wins. Jean-Charles de Borda 1733-1799. French naval commander, scientist, inventor: ballistics, mapping and surveying instruments, pumps, metric trigonometric tables. (wikipedia.org) 27 / 31 28 / 31

Positional voting rules Define a 1 a 2 a N. For each candidate, assign a i points for each voter that assigns that candidate rank i. The candidate with the largest total wins. e.g., Borda count: N, N 1,..., 1. e.g., Plurality: 1, 0,..., 0. e.g., Approval voting: 1, 1,..., 1, 0,..., 0. Properties of positional voting rules Symmetry? Monotonicity? Condorcet winner criterion? Cancellation of ranking cycles? 29 / 31 30 / 31 Outline 31 / 31