Computing the proportional veto core

In social choice there often arises a conflict between the majority principle (the search for a candidate that is as good as possible for as many voters as possible), and the protection of minority rights (choosing a candidate that is not overly bad for particular individuals or groups). In a context where the latter is our main concern, veto-based rules – giving individuals or groups the ability to strike off certain candidates from the list – are a natural and effective way of ensuring that no minority is left with an outcome they find untenable. However, such rules often fail to be anonymous, or impose specific restrictions on the number of voters and candidates. These issues can be addressed by considering the proportional veto core – the solution to a cooperative game where every coalition is given the power to veto a number of candidates proportional to its size. However, the naı̈ve algorithm for the veto core is exponential, and the only known rules for selecting from the veto core, with an arbitrary number of voters, violate either anonymity or neutrality. In this paper we present a polynomial time algorithm for computing the veto core and present a neutral and anonymous algorithm for selecting a candidate from it. We also show that a pessimist can manipulate the veto core in polynomial time.

[1]  Sarit Kraus,et al.  Negotiation Strategies for Agents with Ordinal Preferences , 2018, IJCAI.

[2]  Judith Masthoff,et al.  Group Recommender Systems: Aggregation, Satisfaction and Group Attributes , 2015, Recommender Systems Handbook.

[3]  S. N. Maheshwari,et al.  An O(|V|³) Algorithm for Finding Maximum Flows in Networks , 1978, Inf. Process. Lett..

[4]  Kfir Eliaz,et al.  On the Selection of Arbitrators , 2011 .

[5]  D. Bloom,et al.  An Analysis of the Selection of Arbitrators , 1986 .

[6]  Egor Ianovski,et al.  How should we score athletes and candidates: geometric scoring rules , 2019, Operations Research.

[7]  Alexander S. Nesterov,et al.  Measuring majority power and veto power of voting rules , 2018, Public Choice.

[8]  U. Paris-Dauphine Voting by Sequential Elimination with few Voters , 2017 .

[9]  Hervé Moulin,et al.  The Proportional Veto Principle , 1981 .

[10]  Hervé Moulin,et al.  Prudence versus sophistication in voting strategy , 1981 .

[11]  Hervé Moulin,et al.  IMPLEMENTING EFFICIENT, ANONYMOUS AND NEUTRAL SOCIAL CHOICE FUNCTIONS , 1980 .

[12]  David S. Johnson,et al.  Computers and Intractability: A Guide to the Theory of NP-Completeness , 1978 .

[13]  Bezalel Peleg,et al.  CONSISTENT VOTING SYSTEMS , 1978 .

[14]  Nejat Anbarci,et al.  Finite Alternating-Move Arbitration Schemes and the Equal Area Solution , 2006 .

[15]  A. Wilczynski Interaction among agents via a social network in computational social choice. (Interaction entre agents modélisée par un réseau social dans des problématiques de choix social computationnel) , 2018 .

[16]  Salvador Barberà,et al.  Balancing the Power to Appoint Officers , 2013 .

[17]  John Duggan,et al.  Strategic Manipulability is Inescapable: Gibbard-Satterthwaite without Resoluteness , 1992 .

[18]  Michael S. Kang Voting as Veto , 2010 .

[19]  Hervé Moulin,et al.  A New Solution to the Random Assignment Problem , 2001, J. Econ. Theory.

[20]  Alan D. Taylor,et al.  The Manipulability of Voting Systems , 2002, Am. Math. Mon..

[21]  S. Barberà,et al.  Compromising on Compromise Rules , 2020, The RAND Journal of Economics.

[22]  Nejat Anbarci,et al.  Noncooperative Foundations of the Area Monotonic Solution , 1993 .

[23]  Hervé Moulin,et al.  Voting with Proportional Veto Power , 1982 .

[24]  M. Remzi Sanver,et al.  A solution to the two-person implementation problem , 2019, J. Econ. Theory.