Generalized Veto Core and a Practical Voting Rule with Optimal Metric Distortion

We revisit the recent breakthrough result of Gkatzelis et al. on (single-winner) metric voting, which showed that the optimal distortion of 3 can be achieved by a mechanism called Plurality Matching. The rule picks an arbitrary candidate for whom a certain candidate-specific bipartite graph contains a perfect matching, and thus, it is not neutral (i.e, symmetric with respect to candidates). Subsequently, a much simpler rule called Plurality Veto was shown to achieve distortion 3 as well. This rule only constructs such a matching implicitly but the winner depends on the order that voters are processed, and thus, it is not anonymous (i.e., symmetric with respect to voters). We provide an intuitive interpretation of this matching by generalizing the classical notion of the (proportional) veto core in social choice theory. This interpretation opens up a number of immediate consequences. Previous methods for electing a candidate from the veto core can be interpreted simply as matching algorithms. Different election methods realize different matchings, in turn leading to different sets of candidates as winners. For a broad generalization of the veto core, we show that the generalized veto core is equal to the set of candidates who can emerge as winners under a natural class of matching algorithms reminiscent of Serial Dictatorship. Extending these matching algorithms into continuous time, we obtain a highly practical voting rule with optimal distortion 3, which is also intuitive and easy to explain: Each candidate starts off with public support equal to his plurality score. From time 0 to 1, every voter continuously brings down, at rate 1, the support of her bottom choice among not-yet-eliminated candidates. A candidate is eliminated if he is opposed by a voter after his support reaches 0. On top of being anonymous and neutral, this rule satisfies many other axioms desirable in practice.

[1]  M. Latifian Best of Both Distortion Worlds , 2023, EC.

[2]  Jannik Peters A Note on Rules Achieving Optimal Metric Distortion , 2023, ArXiv.

[3]  Alexandros A. Voudouris,et al.  Settling the Distortion of Distributed Facility Location , 2023, AAMAS.

[4]  Alexandros A. Voudouris Tight Distortion Bounds for Distributed Single-Winner Metric Voting on a Line , 2023, ArXiv.

[5]  Nisarg Shah,et al.  Optimized Distortion and Proportional Fairness in Voting , 2022, EC.

[6]  Alexandros A. Voudouris,et al.  The Metric Distortion of Multiwinner Voting , 2022, AAAI.

[7]  Moses Charikar,et al.  Metric Distortion Bounds for Randomized Social Choice , 2021, SODA.

[8]  Elliot Anshelevich,et al.  The Distortion of Distributed Metric Social Choice , 2021, WINE.

[9]  Elliot Anshelevich,et al.  Distortion in Social Choice Problems: The First 15 Years and Beyond , 2021, IJCAI.

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

[11]  Aris Filos-Ratsikas,et al.  Approximate mechanism design for distributed facility location , 2020, SAGT.

[12]  Nisarg Shah,et al.  Resolving the Optimal Metric Distortion Conjecture , 2020, 2020 IEEE 61st Annual Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science (FOCS).

[13]  Egor Ianovski,et al.  Computing the proportional veto core , 2020, AAAI.

[14]  David Kempe,et al.  Communication, Distortion, and Randomness in Metric Voting , 2019, AAAI.

[15]  David Kempe,et al.  An Analysis Framework for Metric Voting based on LP Duality , 2019, AAAI.

[16]  Kamesh Munagala,et al.  Improved Metric Distortion for Deterministic Social Choice Rules , 2019, EC.

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

[18]  Elliot Anshelevich,et al.  Ordinal Approximation for Social Choice, Matching, and Facility Location Problems Given Candidate Positions , 2018, WINE.

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

[20]  Edith Elkind,et al.  Social Choice Under Metric Preferences: Scoring Rules and STV , 2017, AAAI.

[21]  Kamesh Munagala,et al.  Metric Distortion of Social Choice Rules: Lower Bounds and Fairness Properties , 2016, EC.

[22]  Elliot Anshelevich,et al.  Ordinal approximation in matching and social choice , 2016, SECO.

[23]  Ariel D. Procaccia,et al.  Subset Selection via Implicit Utilitarian Voting , 2016, IJCAI.

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

[25]  Elliot Anshelevich,et al.  Randomized Social Choice Functions under Metric Preferences , 2015, IJCAI.

[26]  Elliot Anshelevich,et al.  Approximating Optimal Social Choice under Metric Preferences , 2015, AAAI.

[27]  S. Barberà,et al.  Balancing the Power to Appoint Officers , 2013, Games Econ. Behav..

[28]  Craig Boutilier,et al.  Optimal social choice functions: a utilitarian view , 2012, EC '12.

[29]  Markus Schulze,et al.  A new monotonic, clone-independent, reversal symmetric, and condorcet-consistent single-winner election method , 2011, Soc. Choice Welf..

[30]  Ariel D. Procaccia,et al.  Voting almost maximizes social welfare despite limited communication , 2010, Artif. Intell..

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

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

[33]  Nicolas de Condorcet Essai Sur L'Application de L'Analyse a la Probabilite Des Decisions Rendues a la Pluralite Des Voix , 2009 .

[34]  Ariel D. Procaccia,et al.  The Distortion of Cardinal Preferences in Voting , 2006, CIA.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[42]  M. Satterthwaite,et al.  Strategy-proofness and single-peakedness , 1976 .

[43]  H. Young Social Choice Scoring Functions , 1975 .

[44]  J. H. Smith AGGREGATION OF PREFERENCES WITH VARIABLE ELECTORATE , 1973 .

[45]  A. Downs An Economic Theory of Political Action in a Democracy , 1957, Journal of Political Economy.

[46]  D. Black On the Rationale of Group Decision-making , 1948, Journal of Political Economy.

[47]  H. Moulin The strategy of social choice , 1983 .

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

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

[50]  P.-C.-F. Daunou,et al.  Mémoire sur les élections au scrutin , 1803 .