Advertisement

Possible Winners in Approval Voting

  • Nathanaël Barrot
  • Laurent Gourvès
  • Jérôme Lang
  • Jérôme Monnot
  • Bernard Ries
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 8176)

Abstract

Given the knowledge of the preferences of a set of voters over a set of candidates, and assuming that voters cast sincere approval ballots, what can we say about the possible (co-)winners? The outcome depends on the number of candidates each voter will approve. Whereas it is easy to know who can be a unique winner, we show that deciding whether a set of at least two candidates can be the set of co-winners is computationally hard. If, in addition, we have a probability distribution over the number of candidates approved by each voter, we obtain a probability distribution over winners; we study the shape of this probability distribution empirically, for the impartial culture assumption. We study variants of the problem where the number of candidates approved by each voter is upper and/or lower bounded. We generalize some of our results to multiwinner approval voting.

Keywords

Computational social choice Approval voting Voting under incomplete knowledge Computational complexity 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Bachrach, Y., Betzler, N., Faliszewski, P.: Probabilistic possible-winner determination. In: Proc. of AAAI 2010 (2010)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Baumeister, D., Erdèlyi, G., Hemaspaandra, E., Hemaspaandra, L., Rothe, J.: Computational aspects of approval voting. In: Laslier, J.-F., Sanver, R. (eds.) Handbook of Approval Voting, pp. 199–251. Springer (2010)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Baumeister, D., Rothe, J.: Taking the final step to a full dichotomy of the possible winner problem in pure scoring rules. In: Proceedings of ECAI 2010 (2010)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Betzler, N., Dorn, B.: Towards a dichotomy of finding possible winners in elections based on scoring rules. In: Královič, R., Niwiński, D. (eds.) MFCS 2009. LNCS, vol. 5734, pp. 124–136. Springer, Heidelberg (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Betzler, N., Hemmann, S., Niedermeier, R.: A multivariate complexity analysis of determining possible winners given incomplete votes. In: Proceedings of IJCAI 2009, pp. 53–58 (2009)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Betzler, N., Slinko, A., Uhlmann, J.: On the computation of fully proportional representation. Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research (2013)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Brams, S., Fishburn, P.: Approval voting. American Political Review 72(3), 831–847 (1978)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Brams, S., Fishburn, P.: Approval Voting, 2nd edn. Birkhäuser (1987)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Brams, S., Sanver, R.: Critical strategies under approval voting: Who gets ruled in and ruled out. Electoral Studies 25(2), 287–305 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Chevaleyre, Y., Lang, J., Maudet, N., Monnot, J., Xia, L.: New candidates welcome! possible winners with respect to the addition of new candidates. Mathematical Social Sciences 64(1), 74–88 (2012)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Darmann, A.: Popular committees. Mathematical Social Sciences (to appear, 2013)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Delort, C., Spanjaard, O., Weng, P.: Committee selection with a weight constraint based on a pairwise dominance relation. In: ADT, pp. 28–41 (2011)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Elkind, E., Lang, J., Saffidine, A.: Choosing collectively optimal sets of alternatives based on the condorcet criterion. In: IJCAI 2011, pp. 186–191 (2011)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Endriss, U.: Sincerity and manipulation under approval voting. Theory and Decision (2011)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Endriss, U., Pini, M.S., Rossi, F., Venable, K.B.: Preference aggregation over restricted ballot languages: Sincerity and strategy-proofness. In: Boutilier, C. (ed.) IJCAI 2009, pp. 122–127 (2009)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Erdélyi, G., Nowak, M., Rothe, J.: Sincere-strategy preference-based approval voting broadly resists control. In: Ochmański, E., Tyszkiewicz, J. (eds.) MFCS 2008. LNCS, vol. 5162, pp. 311–322. Springer, Heidelberg (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Garey, M.R., Johnson, D.S.: Computers and Intractability: A Guide to the Theory of NP-Completeness. W. H. Freeman & Co., New York (1979)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Kalech, M., Kraus, S., Kaminka, G.A., Goldman, C.V.: Practical voting rules with partial information. Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems 22(1), 151–182 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Kilgour, M.: Approval balloting for multi-winner elections. In: Laslier, J.-F., Sanver, R. (eds.) Handbook of Approval Voting, pp. 105–124. Springer (2010)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Klamler, C., Pferschy, U., Ruzika, S.: Committee selection with a weight constraint based on lexicographic rankings of individuals. In: Rossi, F., Tsoukias, A. (eds.) ADT 2009. LNCS, vol. 5783, pp. 50–61. Springer, Heidelberg (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Konczak, K., Lang, J.: Voting procedures with incomplete preferences. In: IJCAI 2005 Multidisciplinary Workshop on Advances in Preference Handling (2005)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Lang, J., Pini, M.S., Rossi, F., Salvagnin, D., Venable, K.B., Walsh, T.: Winner determination in voting trees with incomplete preferences and weighted votes. In: Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems (2011)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Laslier, J.-F.: The leader rule – a model of strategic approval voting in a large electorate. Journal of Theoretical Politics 21, 113–136 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Laslier, J.-F., Sanver, R.: The basic approval voting game. In: Laslier, J.-F., Sanver, R. (eds.) Handbook of Approval Voting. Springer (2010)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Meir, R., Procaccia, A., Rosenschein, J., Zohar, A.: The complexity of strategic behavior in multi-winner elections. JAIR 33, 149–178 (2008)MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Nuñez, M.: Condorcet consistency of approval voting: a counter example in large Poisson games. Journal of Theoretical Politics 22, 64–84 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Procaccia, A., Rosenschein, J., Zohar, A.: On the complexity of achieving proportional representation. Social Choice and Welfare 30(3), 353–362 (2008)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Saari, D.: Systematic analysis of multiple voting rules. Social Choice and Welfare 34(2), 217–247 (2010)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Sertel, M., Yılmaz, B.: The majoritarian compromise is majoritarian-optimal and subgame-perfect implementable. Social Choice and Welfare 16(4), 615–627 (1999)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    De Sinopoli, F., Dutta, B., Laslier, J.-F.: Approval voting: three examples. International Journal of Game Theory 35(1), 27–38 (2006)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Skowron, P., Faliszewski, P., Slinko, A.: Achieving fully proportional representation is easy in practice. In: AAMAS 2013, pp. 399–406 (2013)Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Xia, L., Conitzer, V.: Determining possible and necessary winners under common voting rules given partial orders. In: Proceedings of AAAI 2008, pp. 196–201 (2008)Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Xia, L., Lang, J., Monnot, J.: Possible winners when new alternatives join: new results coming up! In: Sonenberg, L., Stone, P., Tumer, K., Yolum, P. (eds.) AAMAS. IFAAMAS, pp. 829–836 (2011)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Nathanaël Barrot
    • 1
    • 2
  • Laurent Gourvès
    • 2
    • 1
  • Jérôme Lang
    • 2
    • 1
  • Jérôme Monnot
    • 2
    • 1
  • Bernard Ries
    • 1
    • 2
  1. 1.PSLUniversité Paris-DauphineParis Cedex 16France
  2. 2.CNRS, LAMSADE UMR 7243France

Personalised recommendations