A Study of Approval voting on Large Poisson Games

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

ECOLE POLYTECHNIQUE. Cahier n OVERSTATING: A TALE OF TWO CITIES. Matías NUNES Jean-François LASLIER

Supporting Information Political Quid Pro Quo Agreements: An Experimental Study

The basic approval voting game

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

12.2 Defects in Voting Methods

Social Choice Theory. Denis Bouyssou CNRS LAMSADE

Candidate Citizen Models

Arrow s Impossibility Theorem

Electing the President. Chapter 12 Mathematical Modeling

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

Approval Voting and Scoring Rules with Common Values

1.6 Arrow s Impossibility Theorem

1 Electoral Competition under Certainty

Lecture 16: Voting systems

HOTELLING-DOWNS MODEL OF ELECTORAL COMPETITION AND THE OPTION TO QUIT

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

BIPOLAR MULTICANDIDATE ELECTIONS WITH CORRUPTION by Roger B. Myerson August 2005 revised August 2006

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

Classical papers: Osborbe and Slivinski (1996) and Besley and Coate (1997)

Public Choice. Slide 1

Evaluating and Comparing Voting Rules behind the Veil of Ignorance: a Brief and Selective Survey and an Analysis of Two-Parameter Scoring Rules

Sincere versus sophisticated voting when legislators vote sequentially

Sorting Out Mechanical and Psychological Effects in Candidate Elections: An Appraisal with Experimental Data

Sincere Versus Sophisticated Voting When Legislators Vote Sequentially

Exercises For DATA AND DECISIONS. Part I Voting

Social Rankings in Human-Computer Committees

Voter Sovereignty and Election Outcomes

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

Math for Liberal Studies

Political Economics II Spring Lectures 4-5 Part II Partisan Politics and Political Agency. Torsten Persson, IIES

International Cooperation, Parties and. Ideology - Very preliminary and incomplete

Voluntary Voting: Costs and Benefits

Chapter 1 Practice Test Questions

answers to some of the sample exercises : Public Choice

Preferential votes and minority representation in open list proportional representation systems

Collective Decisions, Error and Trust in Wireless Networks

PROBLEM SET #2: VOTING RULES

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

Mechanism design: how to implement social goals

Critical Strategies Under Approval Voting: Who Gets Ruled In And Ruled Out

Electing the President. Chapter 17 Mathematical Modeling

Buying Supermajorities

Enriqueta Aragones Harvard University and Universitat Pompeu Fabra Andrew Postlewaite University of Pennsylvania. March 9, 2000

Experimental Evidence on Condorcet-Eciency and Strategic Voting: Plurality vs Approval Voting

David R. M. Thompson, Omer Lev, Kevin Leyton-Brown & Jeffrey S. Rosenschein COMSOC 2012 Kraków, Poland

Elections with Only 2 Alternatives

MULTIPLE VOTES, MULTIPLE CANDIDACIES AND POLARIZATION ARNAUD DELLIS

Electoral System and Number of Candidates: Candidate Entry under Plurality and Majority Runoff

Strategic voting. with thanks to:

Published in Canadian Journal of Economics 27 (1995), Copyright c 1995 by Canadian Economics Association

HANDBOOK OF EXPERIMENTAL ECONOMICS RESULTS

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

Compulsory versus Voluntary Voting Mechanisms: An Experimental Study

Social Choice & Mechanism Design

Economics 470 Some Notes on Simple Alternatives to Majority Rule

Voting Systems That Combine Approval and Preference

9.3 Other Voting Systems for Three or More Candidates

Utilitarian and Approval Voting

Towards an Information-Neutral Voting Scheme That Does Not Leave Too Much To Chance

ON IGNORANT VOTERS AND BUSY POLITICIANS

Social choice theory

Single Round vs Runoff Elections under Plurality Rule: A Theoretical Analysis

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

Arrow s Conditions and Approval Voting. Which group-ranking method is best?

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

A MODEL OF POLITICAL COMPETITION WITH CITIZEN-CANDIDATES. Martin J. Osborne and Al Slivinski. Abstract

Mathematics and Democracy: Designing Better Voting and Fair-Division Procedures*

Wisdom of the Crowd? Information Aggregation and Electoral Incentives

Introduction to the Theory of Voting

Notes on Strategic and Sincere Voting

MATH 1340 Mathematics & Politics

Lecture 11. Voting. Outline

Strategic Voting and Strategic Candidacy

Voting. Suppose that the outcome is determined by the mean of all voter s positions.

Introduction to Social Choice

The Impossibilities of Voting

Computational social choice Combinatorial voting. Lirong Xia

Illegal Migration and Policy Enforcement

Single Round vs Runoff Elections under Plurality Rule: A Theoretical Analysis

VOTING TO ELECT A SINGLE CANDIDATE

University of Toronto Department of Economics. Party formation in single-issue politics [revised]

INFORMATION AND STRATEGIC VOTING

MIDTERM EXAM: Political Economy Winter 2013

Notes for Session 7 Basic Voting Theory and Arrow s Theorem

Theoretical comparisons of electoral systems

Strategic Voting and Strategic Candidacy

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

The Provision of Public Goods Under Alternative. Electoral Incentives

University of Toronto Department of Economics. Influential Opinion Leaders

To Vote Or To Abstain? An Experimental Study. of First Past the Post and PR Elections

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

EFFICIENCY OF COMPARATIVE NEGLIGENCE : A GAME THEORETIC ANALYSIS

The Robustness of Herrera, Levine and Martinelli s Policy platforms, campaign spending and voter participation

Voting and preference aggregation

Manipulative Voting Dynamics

CS 886: Multiagent Systems. Fall 2016 Kate Larson

An example of public goods

"Efficient and Durable Decision Rules with Incomplete Information", by Bengt Holmström and Roger B. Myerson

Lecture 12: Topics in Voting Theory

Transcription:

A Study of Approval voting on Large Poisson Games Ecole Polytechnique Simposio de Analisis Económico December 2008 Matías Núñez () A Study of Approval voting on Large Poisson Games 1 / 15

A controversy over Approval Voting In large elections, Plurality voting is the most applied voting rule. Plurality voting allows the voter to vote for one candidate and the candidate with the most votes wins the election. There is a literature that advocates the use of Approval Voting, a voting rule similar to Plurality voting but a higher degree of flexibility. Approval voting allows each voter to vote for as many candidates as he wishes by giving at most one point to each candidate. The candidate with the most votes wins the election. Matías Núñez () A Study of Approval voting on Large Poisson Games 2 / 15

Large Poisson Games Standard methods do not lead to a clear-cut conclusion to solve this controversy. Indeed, strategic voting theory uses Nash equilibrium to compare the properties of voting rules. The main problem is the lack of predictive power of Nash equilibrium in voting environments. If every voter votes for the same candidate, this is an equilibrium as no voter can increase his payoff by unilaterally deviating. However, these techniques are not useful to differentiate between one-shot voting rules. Matías Núñez () A Study of Approval voting on Large Poisson Games 3 / 15

Large Poisson Games Myerson s Large Poisson Games try to solve this problem by introducing beliefs (=probability distribution) as far as the relative chances of winning the election of the different candidates are concerned. The underlying idea: self-consistent beliefs. Voters anticipate that a pair of candidates is the most likely one to be in contention for victory. Voters vote given this belief and their votes generate again a belief. If the initial and the posterior belief coincide, this is an equilibrium. Matías Núñez () A Study of Approval voting on Large Poisson Games 4 / 15

A simple example. There are 3 candidates: a,b and c. In a large election with 10 million voters, there are two types of voters: T1 and T2. 6 Million 4 Million a a b c c b T1 T2 Let us assume that the common belief of voters is such that candidates b and c are the most likely winners. Matías Núñez () A Study of Approval voting on Large Poisson Games 5 / 15

A simple example: Plurality Voting There are 3 candidates: a,b and c. In a large election with 10 million voters, there are two types of voters: T1 and T2. 6 Million 4 Million a a b c c b T1 T2 Let us assume that the common belief of voters is such that candidates b and c are the most likely winners. Under Plurality voting, T1-voters vote for b and T2-voters vote for c. Their votes generate again the belief that candidates b and c are the most likely winners. This is an equilibrium, due to the wasted-vote effect. Matías Núñez () A Study of Approval voting on Large Poisson Games 6 / 15

A simple example: Approval Voting There are 3 candidates: a,b and c. In a large election with 10 million voters, there are two types of voters: T1 and T2. 6 Million 4 Million a a b c c b T1 T2 Let us assume that the common belief of voters is such that candidates b and c are the most likely winners. Under Approval voting, T1-voters vote for a and b and T2-voters vote for b and c. Their votes do not generate again the belief that candidates b and c are the most likely winners. This is not an equilibrium! Due to its flexibility, Approval voting reduces the impact of the wasted-vote effect. Matías Núñez () A Study of Approval voting on Large Poisson Games 7 / 15

Our contribution The previous example summarizes Myerson (2002) s conclusion: approval voting leads to better preference aggregation than other voting rules in simple voting situations. Our work shows that Approval Voting does not always have good properties on Large Poisson Games. Indeed, it does not always lead voters to the correct belief about the relative chances of winning the election of the different candidates. A candidate who is ranked first by more than half of the voters need not be the Winner of the election under AV. Matías Núñez () A Study of Approval voting on Large Poisson Games 8 / 15

Approval Voting does not always lead to good preference aggregation There are 3 candidates: a,b and c. In a large election with 10 million voters, there are two types of voters: T1, T2 and T3. 1 Million 6 Million 3 Million a b c c a a b c b T 1 T 2 T 3 Let us assume that the common belief of voters is such that candidates a and c are the most likely winners. Matías Núñez () A Study of Approval voting on Large Poisson Games 9 / 15

Approval Voting does not always lead to good preference aggregation There are 3 candidates: a,b and c. In a large election with 10 million voters, there are two types of voters: T1, T2 and T3. 1 Million 6 Million 3 Million a b c c a a b c b T 1 T 2 T 3 Let us assume that the common belief of voters is such that candidates a and c are the most likely winners. Under Approval voting, T1-voters vote for a, T2-voters vote for b and a and T3-voters vote for c. Their votes generate again the belief that candidates a and c are the most likely winners. This is an equilibrium! Matías Núñez () A Study of Approval voting on Large Poisson Games 10 / 15

Approval Voting does not always lead to good preference aggregation There are 3 candidates: a,b and c. In a large election with 10 million voters, there are two types of voters: T1, T2 and T3. 1 Million 6 Million 3 Million a b c c a a b c b T 1 T 2 T 3 In this equilibrium, Candidate a wins the election and candidate b is the preferred by more than half of the population. Approval voting does not always lead to good preference aggregation! Matías Núñez () A Study of Approval voting on Large Poisson Games 11 / 15

Why do these bad equilibria arise? K represents the set of candidates A voter is characterized by his type t that determines his preferences over K : u t = (u t (k)) k K. Number of voters: x P(n), The number of voters is equal to v with probability e n nv v!. Number of voters with type t: x t P(nr(t)), Number of voters who choose ballot c: x(c) P(nτ(c)) with τ(c) = t r(t)σ(c t) and σ(c t) stands for the strategy of voters with type t. Two main properties stated by Myerson: x(c) and x(c ) are independent. (Independent ballots) Strategies depend uniquely on the type t. (Common public information) Matías Núñez () A Study of Approval voting on Large Poisson Games 12 / 15

Why do these bad equilibria arise? A ballot is a list of the candidates a voter approves of. C k is the set of ballots that approve candidate k. The score s(k) of a candidate is the number of votes candidate k gets: the sum of the votes each ballot c C k gets. s(k) = c C k x(c) P(n c C k τ(c)) The scores of the candidates are correlated!: this is a source of problems in Large Poisson Games. Matías Núñez () A Study of Approval voting on Large Poisson Games 13 / 15

Summary Poisson Games are a framework to study large elections and information manipulation. Myerson (2002) suggests that AV is more robust to this information manipulation than other voting rules by comparing simple voting situations. However, we show that the equilibria that remain under AV are not always desirable. Indeed, a candidate preferred by the majority of voters need not be the winner of the election. Besides, it can be the case that the Condorcet Winner does not win the election in any of the equilibria of the game. Matías Núñez () A Study of Approval voting on Large Poisson Games 14 / 15

Summary Laslier (2006) implements a different framework to study the role of information over the strategic properties of approval voting. In his framework, the size of the population is constant and voters are uncertain with regards to the scores of the candidates (a vote is wrongly recorded with positive probability). He shows that, given every candidate gets a strictly positive share of votes, under AV there is a unique equilibrium where The Condorcet Winner wins the election (whenever it exists) Voters optimal strategies are sincere. In his framework, scores are independent random variables. Matías Núñez () A Study of Approval voting on Large Poisson Games 15 / 15