{"title":"委员会选举的若干k评分规则:协议与孔多塞原则","authors":"Mostapha Diss, Eric Kamwa, A. Tlidi","doi":"10.3917/REDP.305.0021","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Given a collection of individual preferences on a set of candidates and a desired number of winners, a multi-winner voting rule outputs groups of winners, which we call committees. In this paper, we consider five multi-winner voting rules widely studied in the literature of social choice theory: the k-Plurality rule, the k-Borda rule, the k-Negative Plurality rule, the Bloc rule, and the Chamberlin-Courant rule. The objective of this paper is to provide a comparison of these multi-winner voting rules according to many principles by taking into account a probabilistic approach using the well-known Impartial Anonymous Culture (IAC) assumption. We first evaluate the probability that each pair of the considered voting rules selects the same unique committee in order to identify which multi-winner rules are the most likely to agree for a given number of candidates and a fixed target size of the committee. In this matter, our results show that the Chamberlin-Courant rule and the k-Plurality rule on one side, and the k-Borda rule and the Bloc rule on the other side, are the pairs of rules that most agree in comparison to other pairs. Furthermore, we evaluate the probability of every multi-winner voting rule selecting the Condorcet committee a la Gehrlein when it exists. The Condorcet committee a la Gehrlein is a fixed-size committee such that every member defeats every non-member in pairwise comparisons. In addition, we compare the considered multi-winner voting rules according to their ability (susceptibility) to select a committee containing the Condorcet winner (loser) when one exists. Here, our results tell us that in general, the k-Borda rule has the highest performance amongst all the considered voting rules. Finally, we highlight that this paper is one of the very rare contributions in the literature giving exact results under the Impartial Anonymous Culture (IAC) condition for the case of four candidates.","PeriodicalId":44798,"journal":{"name":"REVUE D ECONOMIE POLITIQUE","volume":"13 1","pages":"699-725"},"PeriodicalIF":0.7000,"publicationDate":"2020-11-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"9","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"On Some k-scoring Rules for Committee Elections: Agreement and Condorcet Principle\",\"authors\":\"Mostapha Diss, Eric Kamwa, A. Tlidi\",\"doi\":\"10.3917/REDP.305.0021\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Given a collection of individual preferences on a set of candidates and a desired number of winners, a multi-winner voting rule outputs groups of winners, which we call committees. In this paper, we consider five multi-winner voting rules widely studied in the literature of social choice theory: the k-Plurality rule, the k-Borda rule, the k-Negative Plurality rule, the Bloc rule, and the Chamberlin-Courant rule. The objective of this paper is to provide a comparison of these multi-winner voting rules according to many principles by taking into account a probabilistic approach using the well-known Impartial Anonymous Culture (IAC) assumption. We first evaluate the probability that each pair of the considered voting rules selects the same unique committee in order to identify which multi-winner rules are the most likely to agree for a given number of candidates and a fixed target size of the committee. In this matter, our results show that the Chamberlin-Courant rule and the k-Plurality rule on one side, and the k-Borda rule and the Bloc rule on the other side, are the pairs of rules that most agree in comparison to other pairs. Furthermore, we evaluate the probability of every multi-winner voting rule selecting the Condorcet committee a la Gehrlein when it exists. The Condorcet committee a la Gehrlein is a fixed-size committee such that every member defeats every non-member in pairwise comparisons. In addition, we compare the considered multi-winner voting rules according to their ability (susceptibility) to select a committee containing the Condorcet winner (loser) when one exists. Here, our results tell us that in general, the k-Borda rule has the highest performance amongst all the considered voting rules. Finally, we highlight that this paper is one of the very rare contributions in the literature giving exact results under the Impartial Anonymous Culture (IAC) condition for the case of four candidates.\",\"PeriodicalId\":44798,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"REVUE D ECONOMIE POLITIQUE\",\"volume\":\"13 1\",\"pages\":\"699-725\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.7000,\"publicationDate\":\"2020-11-12\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"9\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"REVUE D ECONOMIE POLITIQUE\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"96\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.3917/REDP.305.0021\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"经济学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"ECONOMICS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"REVUE D ECONOMIE POLITIQUE","FirstCategoryId":"96","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3917/REDP.305.0021","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"经济学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"ECONOMICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 9
摘要
给定对一组候选人的个人偏好集合和期望的获胜者数量,多获胜者投票规则输出获胜者组,我们称之为委员会。本文考虑了社会选择理论文献中被广泛研究的五种多赢家投票规则:k-Plurality规则、k-Borda规则、k-Negative Plurality规则、Bloc规则和Chamberlin-Courant规则。本文的目的是根据许多原则,通过考虑使用著名的公正匿名文化(IAC)假设的概率方法,对这些多赢家投票规则进行比较。我们首先评估每一对考虑的投票规则选择相同唯一委员会的概率,以便确定哪些多赢家规则最有可能同意给定数量的候选人和委员会的固定目标规模。在这个问题上,我们的结果表明,与其他规则相比,Chamberlin-Courant规则和k-Plurality规则以及k-Borda规则和Bloc规则是最一致的规则对。此外,我们评估了每个多赢家投票规则在存在时选择孔多塞委员会的概率。孔多塞委员会(Condorcet committee a la Gehrlein)是一个固定规模的委员会,这样每个成员在两两比较中都会击败每个非成员。此外,我们比较了考虑的多赢家投票规则,根据他们的能力(敏感性)来选择一个包含孔多塞赢家(输家)的委员会。在这里,我们的结果告诉我们,一般来说,k-Borda规则在所有考虑的投票规则中具有最高的性能。最后,我们强调,本文是文献中极少数在公正匿名文化(IAC)条件下对四位候选人的情况给出准确结果的贡献之一。
On Some k-scoring Rules for Committee Elections: Agreement and Condorcet Principle
Given a collection of individual preferences on a set of candidates and a desired number of winners, a multi-winner voting rule outputs groups of winners, which we call committees. In this paper, we consider five multi-winner voting rules widely studied in the literature of social choice theory: the k-Plurality rule, the k-Borda rule, the k-Negative Plurality rule, the Bloc rule, and the Chamberlin-Courant rule. The objective of this paper is to provide a comparison of these multi-winner voting rules according to many principles by taking into account a probabilistic approach using the well-known Impartial Anonymous Culture (IAC) assumption. We first evaluate the probability that each pair of the considered voting rules selects the same unique committee in order to identify which multi-winner rules are the most likely to agree for a given number of candidates and a fixed target size of the committee. In this matter, our results show that the Chamberlin-Courant rule and the k-Plurality rule on one side, and the k-Borda rule and the Bloc rule on the other side, are the pairs of rules that most agree in comparison to other pairs. Furthermore, we evaluate the probability of every multi-winner voting rule selecting the Condorcet committee a la Gehrlein when it exists. The Condorcet committee a la Gehrlein is a fixed-size committee such that every member defeats every non-member in pairwise comparisons. In addition, we compare the considered multi-winner voting rules according to their ability (susceptibility) to select a committee containing the Condorcet winner (loser) when one exists. Here, our results tell us that in general, the k-Borda rule has the highest performance amongst all the considered voting rules. Finally, we highlight that this paper is one of the very rare contributions in the literature giving exact results under the Impartial Anonymous Culture (IAC) condition for the case of four candidates.