Of the People: Voting Is More Effective with Representative Candidates

Yu Cheng, S. Dughmi, D. Kempe
{"title":"Of the People: Voting Is More Effective with Representative Candidates","authors":"Yu Cheng, S. Dughmi, D. Kempe","doi":"10.1145/3033274.3085155","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"In light of the classic impossibility results of Arrow and Gibbard and Satterthwaite regarding voting with ordinal rules, there has been recent interest in characterizing how well common voting rules approximate the social optimum. In order to quantify the quality of approximation, it is natural to consider the candidates and voters as embedded within a common metric space, and to ask how much further the chosen candidate is from the population as compared to the socially optimal one. We use this metric preference model to explore a fundamental and timely question: does the social welfare of a population improve when candidates are representative of the population? If so, then by how much, and how does the answer depend on the complexity of the metric space? We restrict attention to the most fundamental and common social choice setting: a population of voters, two independently drawn candidates, and a majority rule election. When candidates are not representative of the population, it is known that the candidate selected by the majority rule can be thrice as far from the population as the socially optimal one; this holds even when the underlying metric is a line. We examine how this ratio improves when candidates are drawn independently from the population of voters. Our results are two-fold: When the metric is a line, the ratio improves from 3 to 4-2 √2}, roughly 1.1716; this bound is tight. When the metric is arbitrary, we show a lower bound of 1.5 and a constant upper bound strictly better than 2 on the approximation ratio of the majority rule. The positive result depends in part on the assumption that candidates are independent and identically distributed. However, we show that independence alone is not enough to achieve the upper bound: even when candidates are drawn independently, if the population of candidates can be different from the voters, then an upper bound of 2 on the approximation is tight. Thus, we show a constant gap between representative and non-representative candidates.","PeriodicalId":287551,"journal":{"name":"Proceedings of the 2017 ACM Conference on Economics and Computation","volume":"55 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2017-05-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"20","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Proceedings of the 2017 ACM Conference on Economics and Computation","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1145/3033274.3085155","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 20

Abstract

In light of the classic impossibility results of Arrow and Gibbard and Satterthwaite regarding voting with ordinal rules, there has been recent interest in characterizing how well common voting rules approximate the social optimum. In order to quantify the quality of approximation, it is natural to consider the candidates and voters as embedded within a common metric space, and to ask how much further the chosen candidate is from the population as compared to the socially optimal one. We use this metric preference model to explore a fundamental and timely question: does the social welfare of a population improve when candidates are representative of the population? If so, then by how much, and how does the answer depend on the complexity of the metric space? We restrict attention to the most fundamental and common social choice setting: a population of voters, two independently drawn candidates, and a majority rule election. When candidates are not representative of the population, it is known that the candidate selected by the majority rule can be thrice as far from the population as the socially optimal one; this holds even when the underlying metric is a line. We examine how this ratio improves when candidates are drawn independently from the population of voters. Our results are two-fold: When the metric is a line, the ratio improves from 3 to 4-2 √2}, roughly 1.1716; this bound is tight. When the metric is arbitrary, we show a lower bound of 1.5 and a constant upper bound strictly better than 2 on the approximation ratio of the majority rule. The positive result depends in part on the assumption that candidates are independent and identically distributed. However, we show that independence alone is not enough to achieve the upper bound: even when candidates are drawn independently, if the population of candidates can be different from the voters, then an upper bound of 2 on the approximation is tight. Thus, we show a constant gap between representative and non-representative candidates.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
人民的:代表候选人的投票更有效
鉴于阿罗、吉巴德和萨特思韦特关于顺序规则投票的经典不可能结果,最近有兴趣描述共同投票规则在多大程度上接近社会最优。为了量化近似的质量,很自然地将候选人和选民视为嵌入在一个共同的度量空间中,并询问所选择的候选人与社会最优的候选人相比离总体有多远。我们使用这个度量偏好模型来探索一个基本的和及时的问题:当候选人代表人口时,人口的社会福利会得到改善吗?如果是,那么依赖多少,以及答案如何依赖于度量空间的复杂度?我们将注意力限制在最基本和最常见的社会选择设置上:一群选民,两名独立产生的候选人,以及多数决选举。当候选人不具有总体代表性时,已知根据多数决原则选出的候选人离总体的距离可能是社会最优候选人的三倍;即使底层指标是一条线,这一点也成立。我们研究了当候选人独立于选民群体时,这一比例如何提高。我们的结果是双重的:当度量是一条线时,比率从3提高到4-2√2},大约为1.1716;这个界限很紧。当度规是任意的,我们给出了一个1.5的下界和一个严格优于2的常数上界。这个积极的结果部分取决于候选人是独立和均匀分布的假设。然而,我们表明,单独的独立性不足以实现上界:即使候选人是独立抽取的,如果候选人的总体可以不同于选民,那么近似的上界为2是紧的。因此,我们显示了代表性和非代表性候选人之间的持续差距。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Potential Function Minimizers of Combinatorial Congestion Games: Efficiency and Computation Making Right Decisions Based on Wrong Opinions Learning in the Repeated Secretary Problem Facilitating the Search for Partners on Matching Platforms: Restricting Agent Actions Deferred-Acceptance Auctions for Multiple Levels of Service
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1