Economics 470 Some Notes on Simple Alternatives to Majority Rule

Similar documents
12.2 Defects in Voting Methods

answers to some of the sample exercises : Public Choice

Exercises For DATA AND DECISIONS. Part I Voting

Elections with Only 2 Alternatives

Fairness Criteria. Review: Election Methods

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

Math for Liberal Arts MAT 110: Chapter 12 Notes

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

Many Social Choice Rules

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

9.3 Other Voting Systems for Three or More Candidates

Chapter 9: Social Choice: The Impossible Dream Lesson Plan

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

Arrow s Impossibility Theorem

Social welfare functions

Voting: Issues, Problems, and Systems, Continued

1.6 Arrow s Impossibility Theorem

The Impossibilities of Voting

Rationality of Voting and Voting Systems: Lecture II

MATH 1340 Mathematics & Politics

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

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

Mathematical Thinking. Chapter 9 Voting Systems

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

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

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

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

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

The Mathematics of Voting. The Mathematics of Voting

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

Comparison of Voting Systems

Introduction: The Mathematics of Voting

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

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

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

Josh Engwer (TTU) Voting Methods 15 July / 49

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

Syllabus update: Now keeping best 3 of 4 tests

Computational Social Choice: Spring 2017

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

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

Voting: Issues, Problems, and Systems

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

Voting: Issues, Problems, and Systems. Voting I 1/31

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

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

The Mathematics of Voting

Voting Systems. High School Circle I. June 4, 2017

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

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

Approaches to Voting Systems

Chapter 1 Practice Test Questions

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

Voting System: elections

VOTING SYSTEMS AND ARROW S THEOREM

Main idea: Voting systems matter.

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

Computational Social Choice: Spring 2007

Varieties of failure of monotonicity and participation under five voting methods

Voting Methods

Math for Liberal Studies

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

Social Choice & Mechanism Design

Voting Criteria April

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

The Mathematics of Voting

PROBLEM SET #2: VOTING RULES

Algorithms, Games, and Networks February 7, Lecture 8

Warm-up Day 3 Given these preference schedules, identify the Plurality, Borda, Runoff, Sequential Runoff, and Condorcet winners.

Voting and preference aggregation

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

Voting and preference aggregation

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.

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

Manipulating Two Stage Voting Rules

CS 886: Multiagent Systems. Fall 2016 Kate Larson

Voting Systems for Social Choice

Notes for Session 7 Basic Voting Theory and Arrow s Theorem

In Elections, Irrelevant Alternatives Provide Relevant Data

Election Theory. How voters and parties behave strategically in democratic systems. Mark Crowley

Intro to Contemporary Math

Democratic Rules in Context

Introduction to the Theory of Voting

Fair Division in Theory and Practice

Minimax Is the Best Electoral System After All

Simple methods for single winner elections

2-Candidate Voting Method: Majority Rule

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

Homework 7 Answers PS 30 November 2013

Lecture 16: Voting systems

Random tie-breaking in STV

Four Condorcet-Hare Hybrid Methods for Single-Winner Elections

Introduction to Social Choice

Chapter 9: Social Choice: The Impossible Dream Lesson Plan

How should we count the votes?

Public Choice. Slide 1

Warm-up Day 3. Phones OFF and in pockets! 1) Given these preference schedules, identify the Condorcet, Runoff, and Sequential Runoff winners.

THE ALTERNATIVE VOTE AND COOMBS RULE VERSUS FIRST-PAST-THE-POST: A SOCIAL CHOICE ANALYSIS OF SIMULATED DATA BASED ON ENGLISH ELECTIONS,

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

Constructing voting paradoxes with logic and symmetry

Transcription:

Economics 470 Some Notes on Simple Alternatives to Majority Rule Some of the voting procedures considered here are not considered as a means of revealing preferences on a public good issue, but as a means of choosing a candidate for a given office. Majority Rule: Choose the candidate who is ranked first by (n/2) + 1 voters. Plurality Rule: Choose the alternative ranked first by the largest number of voters. Condorcet criterion: Choose the alternative that defeats all others in pairwise elections using majority rule. Majority Rule, Runoff: If one of m candidates receives a majority of first-place votes, this candidate is the winner. If not, a second election is held between the two topvote-getting candidates. The candidate receiving the most votes on the second ballot is the winner. The Hare System: Each voter indicates the candidate he ranks highest of the m candidates. Remove from the list of the candidates the one ranked highest by the fewest voters. Repeat the procedure for the remaining m - 1 candidates. Continue until just one candidate is left. The Coombs System: Each voter indicates the candidate he ranks lowest of the m candidates. Remove from the list of candidates the one ranked lowest by the most voters. Repeat the procedure for remaining m - 1 candidates. Continue until only one candidate remains, who is the winner. Approval Voting: Each voter votes for the k candidates (1 # k # m) he ranks highest of the m candidates, where k can vary from voter to voter. The candidate with the most votes is the winner. Borda Count: Give each of the m candidates a score of 1 to m based on the candidate's ranking in a voter's preference ordering; that is, the candidate ranked first receives m points, the second one m - 1,..., the lowest-ranked candidate one point. The candidate with the highest number of points is declared the winner.

2 Table 7.1. X X Y Z W Y Y Z Y Y Z Z W W Z W W X X X _ For above table, show that Condorcet winner is Y, Plurality winner is X, Approval winner (if cast single vote) is X. This example illustrates that a Condorcet winner may exist and is not picked by Plurality or Approval voting. The Borda count is as follows Y = 16 X = 11 Z = 13 W = 10 so that Y is Borda Count winner Table 7.2. X X X Y Y Y Y Y Z Z Z Z Z X X In Table 7.2, X is majority rule winner, X is Condorcet winner, but Y is Borda count winner.

3 Table 7.3. Y W X Y W X Z Z Z X Z X W X Z W Y Y W Y _ In Table 7.3, X is Condorcet winner, W wins under Hare System, X and Z are Borda count winners. Things to Note 1. Although the other procedures always pick a winner, even when a Condorcet winner does exist, the alternative rules do not always choose the Condorcet winner. 2. One way to evaluate the different procedures is to compute the percentages of the time that a Condorcet winner exists and is selected by a given procedure. Simulations of an electorate of 25 voters with randomly allocated utility functions and various numbers of candiates. (Voters are assumed to max Expected Utility under approval voting by voting for all candidates whose utilities exceed the mean of the candidates for that voter). Condorcet efficiency is not very sensitive to the number of voters. Table 7.4. Condorcet efficiency for a random society (25 voters) Number of Candidates Voting System 3 4 5 7 10 Runoff 96.2 90.1 83.6 73.5 61.3 Plurality 79.1 69.4 62.1 52.0 42.6 Hare 96.2 92.7 89.1 84.8 77.9 Coombs 96.3 93.4 90.2 86.1 81.1 Approval 76.0 69.8 67.1 63.7 61.3 Borda 90.8 87.3 86.2 85.3 84.3 Social utility 84.4 80.2 77.9 77.2 77.8 maximizer

Definition of Choice Set: An element x in S is a best element of S with respect to the binary relation R iff for every y in S, xry. The set of best elements in S is called the choice set C(S, R). Axioms of Borda Count (1) Neutrality: a form of impartiality with respect to issues and candidates. (2) Cancellation property: a form of impartiality toward voters. What determines the social ordering of x and y is the number of voters who prefer x to y versus the number preferring y to x. The identities of the voters do not matter. (3) Faithfulness: the voting procedure, when applied to a society consisting of only one individual, chooses as a best element that voter's most preferred element, that is, is faithful to voter's preferences. * (4) Consistency: Let N and N be two groups of voters who are to select an alternative from the set S. Let C and C be the respective sets of alternatives that the two groups select using voting procedure B. Then if C and C have any elements in common (C intersection C is not the null set, then the winning issue under procedure B when these two subgroups are merged is contained in this common set C = C intersection C. T If two groups of voters agree on an alternative when choosing separately from a set of alternatives, they should agree on the same alternative when they are combined. Table 7.5 N N V6 V7 z x y z z x x x y z x x y z y z x y y z y N we get C = {x, y, z} z = x = y = 6 1 1 N we get C = {x} x = 10, z = 9, y = 5 2 2 N union N we get C = {x} x = 16, z = 15, y = 11 T 4

5 For pairwise majority rule C 1 = {x, y, z} C 2 = {x, z} C T = {z} hence, violates consistency. Other examples Table 7.6 Voters 3 4 5 6 7 x a b x a b x c x a c x a c b c x b c x b a b c a b c a Borda counts: x = 22 a = 17 b = 16 c = 15 now delete x a = 13 b = 14 c = 15 Preferences for inverted-order paradox in Table 7.6 Table 7.7 Voters 3 4 5 6 7 a b c a b c a b c x b c x b c x a c x a c x a b x a b x Borda count: x = 13 a = 18 b = 19 c = 20 Suppose x dies, then a = 15 b = 14 c = 13 Preferences for winner-turns-loser paradox