Liquid Democracy with Ranked Delegations

Liquid democracy is a novel paradigm for collective decisionmaking that gives agents the choice between casting a direct vote or delegating their vote to another agent. We consider a generalization of the standard liquid democracy setting by allowing agents to specify multiple potential delegates, together with a preference ranking among them. This generalization increases the number of possible delegation paths and enables higher participation rates because fewer votes are lost due to delegation cycles or abstaining agents. In order to implement this generalization of liquid democracy, we need to find a principled way of choosing between multiple delegation paths. In this paper, we provide a thorough axiomatic analysis of the space of delegation rules, i.e., functions assigning a feasible delegation path to each delegating agent. In particular, we prove axiomatic characterizations as well as an impossibility result for delegation rules. We also analyze requirements on delegation rules that have been suggested by practitioners, and introduce novel rules with attractive properties. By performing an extensive experimental analysis on synthetic as well as real-world data, we compare delegation rules with respect to several quantitative criteria relating to the chosen paths and the resulting distribution of voting power. Our experiments reveal that delegation rules can be aligned on a spectrum reflecting an inherent trade-off between competing objectives.

[1]  Christos Faloutsos,et al.  Edge Weight Prediction in Weighted Signed Networks , 2016, 2016 IEEE 16th International Conference on Data Mining (ICDM).

[2]  Chiara Valsangiacomo Political Representation in Liquid Democracy , 2021, Frontiers in Political Science.

[3]  Luke Riley,et al.  Incentivising Participation in Liquid Democracy with Breadth First Delegation , 2018, AAMAS.

[4]  Davide Grossi,et al.  Binary Voting with Delegable Proxy: An Analysis of Liquid Democracy , 2017, TARK.

[5]  Albert,et al.  Emergence of scaling in random networks , 1999, Science.

[6]  Krishna P. Gummadi,et al.  On the evolution of user interaction in Facebook , 2009, WOSN '09.

[7]  Jannik Matuschke,et al.  Popular branchings and their dual certificates , 2019, IPCO.

[8]  M. R. Rao,et al.  Combinatorial Optimization , 1992, NATO ASI Series.

[9]  Steven Hardt,et al.  Google Votes: A Liquid Democracy Experiment on a Corporate Social Network , 2015 .

[10]  Steffen Staab,et al.  Voting Behaviour and Power in Online Democracy: A Study of LiquidFeedback in Germany's Pirate Party , 2015, ICWSM.

[11]  Christian Blum,et al.  Liquid Democracy : Potentials, Problems, and Perspectives , 2016 .

[12]  Rajmohan Rajaraman,et al.  Meet and merge: approximation algorithms for confluent flows , 2003, STOC '03.

[13]  James C. Miller A program for direct and proxy voting in the legislative process , 1969 .

[14]  Christian Bauckhage,et al.  The slashdot zoo: mining a social network with negative edges , 2009, WWW.

[15]  Ariel D. Procaccia,et al.  The Fluid Mechanics of Liquid Democracy , 2018, WINE.

[16]  Ravi Kumar,et al.  Structure and evolution of online social networks , 2006, KDD '06.

[17]  Burt L. Monroe,et al.  The Principles of Parliamentary Representation , 1996 .

[18]  M. De Domenico,et al.  The Anatomy of a Scientific Rumor , 2013, Scientific Reports.

[19]  Bhuvanapriya R.,et al.  Smart voting , 2017, 2017 2nd International Conference on Computing and Communications Technologies (ICCCT).

[20]  Nimrod Talmon,et al.  Pairwise Liquid Democracy , 2018, IJCAI.

[21]  Alois Paulin,et al.  An Overview of Ten Years of Liquid Democracy Research , 2020, DG.O.

[22]  Markus Brill,et al.  Interactive Democracy , 2018, AAMAS.

[23]  Ariel D. Procaccia,et al.  Liquid Democracy: An Algorithmic Perspective , 2018, AAAI.

[24]  Francesco Bonchi,et al.  In the Virtual Extension , 2011, Commun. ACM.