Socially desirable approximations for dodgson’s voting rule

In 1876, Charles Lutwidge Dodgson suggested the intriguing voting rule that today bears his name. Although Dodgson’s rule is one of the most well-studied voting rules, it suffers from serious deficiencies, both from the computational point of view—it is NP-hard even to approximate the Dodgson score within sublogarithmic factors—and from the social choice point of view—it fails basic social choice desiderata such as monotonicity and homogeneity. However, this does not preclude the existence of approximation algorithms for Dodgson that are monotonic or homogeneous, and indeed it is natural to ask whether such algorithms exist. In this article, we give definitive answers to these questions. We design a monotonic exponential-time algorithm that yields a 2-approximation to the Dodgson score, while matching this result with a tight lower bound. We also present a monotonic polynomial-time O(log m)-approximation algorithm (where m is the number of alternatives); this result is tight as well due to a complexity-theoretic lower bound. Furthermore, we show that a slight variation on a known voting rule yields a monotonic, homogeneous, polynomial-time O(mlog m)-approximation algorithm and establish that it is impossible to achieve a better approximation ratio even if one just asks for homogeneity. We complete the picture by studying several additional social choice properties; for these properties, we prove that algorithms with an approximation ratio that depends only on m do not exist.

[1]  Vijay V. Vazirani,et al.  Approximation Algorithms , 2001, Springer Berlin Heidelberg.

[2]  N. Nisan Introduction to Mechanism Design (for Computer Scientists) , 2007 .

[3]  Jörg Rothe,et al.  Exact analysis of Dodgson elections: Lewis Carroll's 1876 voting system is complete for parallel access to NP , 1997, JACM.

[4]  Piotr Faliszewski,et al.  Multimode Control Attacks on Elections , 2009, IJCAI.

[5]  M. Trick,et al.  Voting schemes for which it can be difficult to tell who won the election , 1989 .

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

[7]  D. Coppersmith,et al.  Ordering by weighted number of wins gives a good ranking for weighted tournaments , 2006, SODA 2006.

[8]  Felix Brandt,et al.  Some Remarks on Dodgson's Voting Rule , 2009, Math. Log. Q..

[9]  Geoffrey Pritchard,et al.  Approximability of Dodgson’s rule , 2008, Soc. Choice Welf..

[10]  Felix A. Fischer,et al.  The Computational Complexity of Choice Sets , 2009, Math. Log. Q..

[11]  Ariel D. Procaccia,et al.  On the approximability of Dodgson and Young elections , 2009, Artif. Intell..

[12]  Claire Mathieu,et al.  Electronic Colloquium on Computational Complexity, Report No. 144 (2006) How to rank with few errors A PTAS for Weighted Feedback Arc Set on Tournaments , 2006 .

[13]  P. Fishburn Condorcet Social Choice Functions , 1977 .

[14]  Lane A. Hemaspaandra,et al.  Guarantees for the success frequency of an algorithm for finding Dodgson-election winners , 2009, J. Heuristics.

[15]  Rolf Niedermeier,et al.  Parameterized computational complexity of Dodgson and Young elections , 2010, Inf. Comput..

[16]  Éva Tardos,et al.  Truthful mechanisms for one-parameter agents , 2001, Proceedings 2001 IEEE International Conference on Cluster Computing.

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

[18]  Nir Ailon,et al.  Aggregating inconsistent information: Ranking and clustering , 2008 .

[19]  D. Black The theory of committees and elections , 1959 .

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