Characterizing best-worst voting systems in the scoring context
نویسندگان
چکیده
An increasing body of theoretical and empirical work on discrete choice considers a choice design in which a person is asked to select both the best and the worst alternative in an available set of alternatives, in contrast to more traditional tasks such as where the person is asked to: select the best alternative; select the worst alternative; rank the alternatives. Here we consider voting systems motivated by such “best-worst” choice; characterize a class of “best-worst” voting systems in terms of a set of axioms in the context of scoring rules; and discuss briefly possible extensions to approval-disapproval systems.
منابع مشابه
Comparison of Scoring Rules in Poisson Voting Games
Scoring rules are compared by the equilibria that they generate for simple elections with three candidates and voters drawn from large Poisson distributions. A calculus for comparing pivot probabilities in Poisson voting games is applied. For a symmetric Condorcet cycle, nonsymmetric discriminatory equilibria exist under best-rewarding scoring rules like plurality voting. A candidate who is uni...
متن کاملAn improved approach for ranking the candidates in a voting system based on efficiency intervals
This paper proposes improvements and revisions to a recent approach in a voting system, and provides an effective approach with a stronger discriminate power. For this purpose, the advantage of a linear transformation is utilized to redene a previously used concept of virtual worst candidate, by incorporating the existing weight restrictions. Then, the best score of this virtual candidate is us...
متن کاملScoring rule voting games and dominance solvability
This paper studies the dominance-solvability (by iterated deletion of weakly dominated strategies) of general scoring rule voting games. The scoring rules we study include Plurality rule, Approval voting, Negative Plurality Rule, Borda rule and Relative Utilitarianism. We provide a classification of scoring rule voting games according to whether the sufficient conditions for dominance solvabili...
متن کاملCan Approximation Circumvent Gibbard-Satterthwaite?
The Gibbard-Satterthwaite Theorem asserts that any reasonable voting rule cannot be strategyproof. A large body of research in AI deals with circumventing this theorem via computational considerations; the goal is to design voting rules that are computationally hard, in the worst-case, to manipulate. However, recent work indicates that the prominent voting rules are usually easy to manipulate. ...
متن کاملTypical-Case Challenges to Complexity Shields That Are Supposed to Protect Elections Against Manipulation and Control: A Survey
In the context of voting, manipulation and control refer to attempts to influence the outcome of elections by either setting some of the votes strategically (i.e., by reporting untruthful preferences) or by altering the structure of elections via adding, deleting, or partitioning either candidates or voters. Since by the celebrated Gibbard–Satterthwaite theorem (and other results expanding its ...
متن کاملذخیره در منابع من
با ذخیره ی این منبع در منابع من، دسترسی به آن را برای استفاده های بعدی آسان تر کنید
عنوان ژورنال:
- Social Choice and Welfare
دوره 34 شماره
صفحات -
تاریخ انتشار 2010