多赢家排序选择选举中截断选票的新公平标准

Adam Graham-Squire, Matthew I. Jones, David McCune
{"title":"多赢家排序选择选举中截断选票的新公平标准","authors":"Adam Graham-Squire, Matthew I. Jones, David McCune","doi":"arxiv-2408.03926","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"In real-world elections where voters cast preference ballots, voters often\nprovide only a partial ranking of the candidates. Despite this empirical\nreality, prior social choice literature frequently analyzes fairness criteria\nunder the assumption that all voters provide a complete ranking of the\ncandidates. We introduce new fairness criteria for multiwinner ranked-choice\nelections concerning truncated ballots. In particular, we define notions of the\nindependence of losing voters blocs and independence of winning voters blocs,\nwhich state that the winning committee of an election should not change when we\nremove partial ballots which rank only losing candidates, and the winning\ncommittee should change in reasonable ways when removing ballots which rank\nonly winning candidates. Of the voting methods we analyze, the\nChamberlin-Courant rule performs the best with respect to these criteria, the\nexpanding approvals rule performs the worst, and the method of single\ntransferable vote falls in between.","PeriodicalId":501273,"journal":{"name":"arXiv - ECON - General Economics","volume":"60 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"New fairness criteria for truncated ballots in multi-winner ranked-choice elections\",\"authors\":\"Adam Graham-Squire, Matthew I. Jones, David McCune\",\"doi\":\"arxiv-2408.03926\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"In real-world elections where voters cast preference ballots, voters often\\nprovide only a partial ranking of the candidates. Despite this empirical\\nreality, prior social choice literature frequently analyzes fairness criteria\\nunder the assumption that all voters provide a complete ranking of the\\ncandidates. We introduce new fairness criteria for multiwinner ranked-choice\\nelections concerning truncated ballots. In particular, we define notions of the\\nindependence of losing voters blocs and independence of winning voters blocs,\\nwhich state that the winning committee of an election should not change when we\\nremove partial ballots which rank only losing candidates, and the winning\\ncommittee should change in reasonable ways when removing ballots which rank\\nonly winning candidates. Of the voting methods we analyze, the\\nChamberlin-Courant rule performs the best with respect to these criteria, the\\nexpanding approvals rule performs the worst, and the method of single\\ntransferable vote falls in between.\",\"PeriodicalId\":501273,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"arXiv - ECON - General Economics\",\"volume\":\"60 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-08-07\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"arXiv - ECON - General Economics\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/arxiv-2408.03926\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"arXiv - ECON - General Economics","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/arxiv-2408.03926","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

在现实世界的选举中,选民投出的是偏好票,选民往往只提供候选人的部分排名。尽管存在这一经验现实,之前的社会选择文献经常在所有选民都提供完整候选人排名的假设下分析公平性标准。我们为涉及截断选票的多人排序选择选举引入了新的公平性标准。特别是,我们定义了落选选民群体的独立性和获胜选民群体的独立性这两个概念,即当移除仅对落选候选人进行排名的部分选票时,选举的获胜委员会不应发生变化;而当移除仅对获胜候选人进行排名的选票时,获胜委员会应发生合理的变化。在我们分析的投票方法中,就这些标准而言,钱伯林-库兰特规则表现最好,扩大批准规则表现最差,而单一可转让投票方法则介于两者之间。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
New fairness criteria for truncated ballots in multi-winner ranked-choice elections
In real-world elections where voters cast preference ballots, voters often provide only a partial ranking of the candidates. Despite this empirical reality, prior social choice literature frequently analyzes fairness criteria under the assumption that all voters provide a complete ranking of the candidates. We introduce new fairness criteria for multiwinner ranked-choice elections concerning truncated ballots. In particular, we define notions of the independence of losing voters blocs and independence of winning voters blocs, which state that the winning committee of an election should not change when we remove partial ballots which rank only losing candidates, and the winning committee should change in reasonable ways when removing ballots which rank only winning candidates. Of the voting methods we analyze, the Chamberlin-Courant rule performs the best with respect to these criteria, the expanding approvals rule performs the worst, and the method of single transferable vote falls in between.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
It depends: Varieties of defining growth dependence Experimental Evidence That Conversational Artificial Intelligence Can Steer Consumer Behavior Without Detection Cognitive Hierarchy in Day-to-day Network Flow Dynamics The long-term human capital and health impacts of a pollution reduction programme What Does ChatGPT Make of Historical Stock Returns? Extrapolation and Miscalibration in LLM Stock Return Forecasts
×
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