Barriers to Manipulation in Voting

Example 6.1. Consider an election with three alternatives, a, b, and c, and three voters, 1, 2, and 3. Suppose the rule used is plurality—an alternative gets a point each time it is ranked first by a voter, and the alternative with the most points wins—with ties broken toward alternatives earlier in the alphabet. Suppose voter 3 knows (or strongly suspects) that voter 1 will rank a first in her vote, and that voter 2 will rank b first. Voter 3’s true preferences are c b a. If she votes truthfully, this will result in a three-way tie, broken in favor of a which is 3’s least preferred alternative. If, instead, voter 3 ranks b first, then b will win instead. Hence, voter 3 has an incentive to cast a vote that does not reflect her true preferences.

[1]  Toby Walsh,et al.  Lot-based voting rules , 2012, AAMAS.

[2]  Noam Nisan,et al.  Elections Can be Manipulated Often , 2008, 2008 49th Annual IEEE Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science.

[3]  Zajj Daugherty,et al.  An Introduction to Voting Theory , 2004 .

[4]  Piotr Faliszewski,et al.  Coalitional Voting Manipulation: A Game-Theoretic Perspective , 2011, IJCAI.

[5]  A. Gibbard Manipulation of Schemes That Mix Voting with Chance , 1977 .

[6]  Omer Lev,et al.  Analysis of Equilibria in Iterative Voting Schemes , 2015, AAAI.

[7]  Svetlana Obraztsova,et al.  On the Complexity of Voting Manipulation under Randomized Tie-Breaking , 2011, IJCAI.

[8]  Jérôme Lang,et al.  Voting procedures with incomplete preferences , 2005 .

[9]  Piotr Faliszewski,et al.  An NTU Cooperative Game Theoretic View of Manipulating Elections , 2011, WINE.

[10]  John J. Bartholdi,et al.  Single transferable vote resists strategic voting , 2015 .

[11]  Piotr Faliszewski,et al.  AI's War on Manipulation: Are We Winning? , 2010, AI Mag..

[12]  Piotr Faliszewski,et al.  Complexity of manipulation, bribery, and campaign management in Bucklin and fallback voting , 2013, Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems.

[13]  Vincent Conitzer,et al.  Strategic Voting and Strategic Candidacy , 2015, AAAI.

[14]  Lirong Xia,et al.  Voting in Combinatorial Domains , 2016, Handbook of Computational Social Choice.

[15]  William S. Zwicker,et al.  Monotonicity properties and their adaptation to irresolute social choice rules , 2012, Soc. Choice Welf..

[16]  Toby Walsh,et al.  Manipulating two stage voting rules , 2013, AAMAS.

[17]  Vanessa Teague,et al.  On The Complexity of Manipulating Elections , 2007, CATS.

[18]  Edith Elkind,et al.  Hybrid Voting Protocols and Hardness of Manipulation , 2005, ISAAC.

[19]  Lane A. Hemaspaandra,et al.  Schulze and ranked-pairs voting are fixed-parameter tractable to bribe, manipulate, and control , 2015, Annals of Mathematics and Artificial Intelligence.

[20]  Piotr Faliszewski,et al.  Copeland voting: ties matter , 2008, AAMAS.

[21]  Ariel D. Procaccia,et al.  Algorithms for the coalitional manipulation problem , 2008, SODA '08.

[22]  Vincent Conitzer,et al.  Computational criticisms of the revelation principle , 2004, EC '04.

[23]  Vincent Conitzer,et al.  Compilation Complexity of Common Voting Rules , 2010, AAAI.

[24]  Vincent Conitzer,et al.  Nonexistence of Voting Rules That Are Usually Hard to Manipulate , 2006, AAAI.

[25]  Keith Dowding,et al.  In Praise of Manipulation , 2007, British Journal of Political Science.

[26]  Felix Brandt,et al.  Necessary and sufficient conditions for the strategyproofness of irresolute social choice functions , 2011, TARK XIII.

[27]  Vincent Conitzer,et al.  Anonymity-Proof Voting Rules , 2008, WINE.

[28]  Edith Elkind,et al.  The Complexity of Safe Manipulation under Scoring Rules , 2011, IJCAI.

[29]  Toby Walsh,et al.  Ties Matter: Complexity of Manipulation when Tie-Breaking with a Random Vote , 2013, AAAI.

[30]  Vincent Conitzer,et al.  Finite Local Consistency Characterizes Generalized Scoring Rules , 2009, IJCAI.

[31]  Piotr Faliszewski,et al.  Approximability of Manipulating Elections , 2008, AAAI.

[32]  Inon Zuckerman,et al.  Universal Voting Protocol Tweaks to Make Manipulation Hard , 2003, IJCAI.

[33]  Nadja Betzler,et al.  Towards a dichotomy for the Possible Winner problem in elections based on scoring rules , 2009, J. Comput. Syst. Sci..

[34]  M. Satterthwaite Strategy-proofness and Arrow's conditions: Existence and correspondence theorems for voting procedures and social welfare functions , 1975 .

[35]  Edith Elkind,et al.  Complexity of Safe Strategic Voting , 2010, SAGT.

[36]  Gerhard J. Woeginger,et al.  Unweighted Coalitional Manipulation under the Borda Rule Is NP-Hard , 2011, IJCAI.

[37]  Vincent Conitzer,et al.  A scheduling approach to coalitional manipulation , 2010, EC '10.

[38]  Svetlana Obraztsova,et al.  Ties Matter: Complexity of Voting Manipulation Revisited , 2011, IJCAI.

[39]  Arkadii Slinko,et al.  Non-dictatorial Social Choice Rules Are Safely Manipulable , 2008 .

[40]  Omer Lev,et al.  Convergence of iterative voting , 2012, AAMAS.

[41]  Vincent Conitzer,et al.  Vote elicitation: complexity and strategy-proofness , 2002, AAAI/IAAI.

[42]  Vincent Conitzer,et al.  When are elections with few candidates hard to manipulate? , 2007, J. ACM.

[43]  Felix Brandt,et al.  Group-Strategyproof Irresolute Social Choice Functions , 2010, IJCAI.

[44]  Elchanan Mossel,et al.  A Smooth Transition from Powerlessness to Absolute Power , 2012, J. Artif. Intell. Res..

[45]  David C. Parkes,et al.  A Complexity-of-Strategic-Behavior Comparison between Schulze's Rule and Ranked Pairs , 2012, AAAI.

[46]  Craig Boutilier,et al.  Incomplete Information and Communication in Voting , 2016, Handbook of Computational Social Choice.

[47]  Murat R. Sertel,et al.  Strong equilibrium outcomes of voting games ¶are the generalized Condorcet winners , 2004, Soc. Choice Welf..

[48]  Piotr Faliszewski,et al.  Using complexity to protect elections , 2010, Commun. ACM.

[49]  Edith Elkind,et al.  Games Gibbard – Satterthwaite Manipulators Play , 2014 .

[50]  A. Gibbard Manipulation of Voting Schemes: A General Result , 1973 .

[51]  Ariel D. Procaccia,et al.  Average-case tractability of manipulation in voting via the fraction of manipulators , 2007, AAMAS '07.

[52]  Nicholas R. Jennings,et al.  Convergence to Equilibria in Plurality Voting , 2010, AAAI.

[53]  Piotr Faliszewski,et al.  The shield that never was: societies with single-peaked preferences are more open to manipulation and control , 2009, TARK '09.

[54]  Ariel D. Procaccia Can Approximation Circumvent Gibbard-Satterthwaite? , 2010, AAAI.

[55]  Edith Elkind,et al.  Equilibria of plurality voting with abstentions , 2010, EC '10.

[56]  Vincent Conitzer,et al.  General Tiebreaking Schemes for Computational Social Choice , 2015, AAMAS.

[57]  Toby Walsh,et al.  Eliminating the Weakest Link: Making Manipulation Intractable? , 2012, AAAI.

[58]  Toby Walsh,et al.  An Empirical Study of the Manipulability of Single Transferable Voting , 2010, ECAI.

[59]  Vincent Conitzer,et al.  Generalized scoring rules and the frequency of coalitional manipulability , 2008, EC '08.

[60]  Svetlana Obraztsova,et al.  Plurality Voting with Truth-Biased Agents , 2013, SAGT.

[61]  Toby Walsh,et al.  Where are the hard manipulation problems? , 2010, J. Artif. Intell. Res..

[62]  Elchanan Mossel,et al.  A quantitative Gibbard-Satterthwaite theorem without neutrality , 2011, STOC '12.

[63]  Geoffrey Pritchard,et al.  Asymptotics of the minimum manipulating coalition size for positional voting rules under impartial culture behaviour , 2009, Math. Soc. Sci..

[64]  Felix Brandt,et al.  On the Incompatibility of Efficiency and Strategyproofness in Randomized Social Choice , 2014, AAAI.

[65]  Ulrich Endriss,et al.  Voter response to iterated poll information , 2012, AAMAS.

[66]  Vincent Conitzer,et al.  On the Axiomatic Characterization of Runoff Voting Rules , 2014, AAAI.

[67]  Mark C. Wilson,et al.  Best Reply Dynamics for Scoring Rules , 2012, ECAI.

[68]  Toby Walsh,et al.  Complexity of and algorithms for the manipulation of Borda, Nanson's and Baldwin's voting rules , 2014, Artif. Intell..

[69]  Arkadii M. Slinko,et al.  How large should a coalition be to manipulate an election? , 2004, Math. Soc. Sci..

[70]  Makoto Yokoo,et al.  False-name-proof mechanism design without money , 2011, AAMAS.

[71]  Yann Chevaleyre,et al.  Compiling the votes of a subelectorate , 2009, IJCAI 2009.

[72]  Vincent Conitzer,et al.  A sufficient condition for voting rules to be frequently manipulable , 2008, EC '08.

[73]  Toby Walsh,et al.  Uncertainty in Preference Elicitation and Aggregation , 2007, AAAI.

[74]  Matthias Messner,et al.  Strong and coalition-proof political equilibria under plurality and runoff rule , 2007, Int. J. Game Theory.

[75]  Toby Walsh,et al.  Combining Voting Rules Together , 2012, ECAI.

[76]  Makoto Yokoo,et al.  The effect of false-name bids in combinatorial auctions: new fraud in internet auctions , 2004, Games Econ. Behav..

[77]  Edith Elkind,et al.  Manipulation under voting rule uncertainty , 2012, AAMAS.

[78]  Toby Walsh,et al.  Complexity of and Algorithms for Borda Manipulation , 2011, AAAI.

[79]  Vincent Conitzer,et al.  Stackelberg Voting Games: Computational Aspects and Paradoxes , 2010, AAAI.

[80]  M. Trick,et al.  The computational difficulty of manipulating an election , 1989 .

[81]  Vincent Conitzer,et al.  Communication complexity of common voting rules , 2005, EC '05.

[82]  Felix Brandt,et al.  On the tradeoff between economic efficiency and strategy proofness in randomized social choice , 2013, AAMAS.

[83]  Ariel D. Procaccia,et al.  Frequent Manipulability of Elections: The Case of Two Voters , 2008, WINE.

[84]  F. Brandt,et al.  Computational Social Choice: Prospects and Challenges , 2011, FET.

[85]  Toby Walsh,et al.  Manipulation of Nanson's and Baldwin's Rules , 2011, AAAI.

[86]  Jörg Rothe,et al.  Hybrid Elections Broaden Complexity‐Theoretic Resistance to Control , 2006, IJCAI.

[87]  Vincent Conitzer,et al.  Strategic sequential voting in multi-issue domains and multiple-election paradoxes , 2011, EC '11.

[88]  P. Faliszewski,et al.  Control and Bribery in Voting , 2016, Handbook of Computational Social Choice.

[89]  Guy Kindler,et al.  The Geometry of Manipulation: A Quantitative Proof of the Gibbard-Satterthwaite Theorem , 2010, 2010 IEEE 51st Annual Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science.

[90]  Ariel D. Procaccia,et al.  Complexity of unweighted coalitional manipulation under some common voting rules , 2009, IJCAI 2009.

[91]  Edith Hemaspaandra,et al.  Bypassing Combinatorial Protections: Polynomial-Time Algorithms for Single-Peaked Electorates , 2010, AAAI.

[92]  Toby Walsh,et al.  Coalitional manipulation for Schulze's rule , 2013, AAMAS.

[93]  Salvador Barberà,et al.  Majority and Positional Voting in a Probabilistic Framework , 1979 .

[94]  T. Tideman,et al.  Independence of clones as a criterion for voting rules , 1987 .

[95]  Vincent Conitzer,et al.  Determining Possible and Necessary Winners under Common Voting Rules Given Partial Orders , 2008, AAAI.

[96]  Jörg Rothe,et al.  Taking the final step to a full dichotomy of the possible winner problem in pure scoring rules , 2010, Inf. Process. Lett..

[97]  John Duggan,et al.  Strategic manipulability without resoluteness or shared beliefs: Gibbard-Satterthwaite generalized , 2000, Soc. Choice Welf..

[98]  Edith Hemaspaandra,et al.  Dichotomy for voting systems , 2005, J. Comput. Syst. Sci..

[99]  Omer Lev,et al.  Empirical analysis of plurality election equilibria , 2013, AAMAS.

[100]  Ariel D. Procaccia,et al.  Junta Distributions and the Average-Case Complexity of Manipulating Elections , 2007, J. Artif. Intell. Res..