The vulnerability of point-voting schemes to preference variation and strategic manipulation

AbstractThis essay measures and analyzes for a special class of point-voting schemes (the Borda method, plurality rule and the unrestricted point-voting scheme) sensitivity to preference variation (a simple change in the socially winning alternative resulting from alteration of a single voter's preferences) and vulnerability to individual strategic manipulation (a change in the winning alternative that benefits the voter whose preferences are altered). Assuming that society (n voters with linear preference orders on a finite set of m alternatives) satisfies the impartial-culture assumption, that is, each randomly selected voter is equally likely to hold any one of the randomly picked possible preference orders on the alternatives, we demonstrate: (i)for a given rule and a fixed number of voters, the sensitivity to individual preference variation and the vulnerability to individual strategic manipulation are greater, the larger the total number of alternatives.(ii)For a given rule and a fixed number of alternatives, the vulnerability to individual strategic manipulation, in general, is not greater the smaller the total number of voters. Such a relationship does hold, however, if n is sufficiently large.(iii)For any given combination of number of voters and number of alternatives, the unrestricted point-voting scheme is more sensitive to preference variation than the Borda method, which, in turn, is more exposed to such variation relative to the plurality rule. A similar conclusion does not hold with respect to vulnerability to individual strategic manipulation, unless the number of voters is sufficiently small.

[1]  Prasanta K. Pattanaik,et al.  Strategic Voting Without Collusion Under Binary and Democratic Group Decision Rules , 1975 .

[2]  Shlomo I. Lampert,et al.  Preference expression and misrepresentation in points voting schemes , 1980 .

[3]  Bezalel Peleg A note on manipulability of large voting schemes , 1979 .

[4]  C. Plott,et al.  The Probability of a Cyclical Majority , 1970 .

[5]  David Klahr,et al.  A Computer Simulation of the Paradox of Voting , 1966, American Political Science Review.

[6]  A. Sen,et al.  Collective Choice and Social Welfare , 2017 .

[7]  R. Niemi,et al.  A mathematical solution for the probability of the paradox of voting. , 1968, Behavioral science.

[8]  K. Arrow Social Choice and Individual Values , 1951 .

[9]  Jerry S. Kelly,et al.  Voting Anomalies, the Number of Voters, and the Number of Alternatives , 1974 .

[10]  G. Tullock,et al.  Computer Simulation of a Small Voting System , 1970 .

[11]  Peter Gärdenfors Positionalist voting functions , 1973 .

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

[13]  Prasanta K. Pattanaik,et al.  On the stability of sincere voting situations , 1973 .

[14]  Manimay Sengupta Monotonicity, Independence of Irrelevant Alternatives and Strategy-Proofness of Social Decision Functions , 1980 .

[15]  M. Kamien,et al.  The paradox of voting: probability calculations. , 1968, Behavioral science.

[16]  P. Fishburn The Theory Of Social Choice , 1973 .

[17]  P. Gärdenfors Manipulation of social choice functions , 1976 .

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

[19]  Salvador Barberà,et al.  THE MANIPULATION OF SOCIAL CHOICE MECHANISMS THAT DO NOT LEAVE "TOO MUCH" TO CHANCE' , 1977 .

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

[21]  Peter C. Fishburn,et al.  The probability of the paradox of voting: A computable solution , 1976 .

[22]  Stability of sincere voting under some classes of non-binary group decision procedures , 1974 .

[23]  B. Peleg,et al.  A note on the extension of an order on a set to the power set , 1984 .

[24]  Jerry S. Kelly,et al.  STRATEGY-PROOFNESS AND SOCIAL CHOICE FUNCTIONS WITHOUT SINGLEVALUEDNESS , 1977 .