Measuring Violations of Positive Involvement in Voting

Electronic Proceedings in Theoretical Computer Science 335:189-209 (2021)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

In the context of computational social choice, we study voting methods that assign a set of winners to each profile of voter preferences. A voting method satisfies the property of positive involvement (PI) if for any election in which a candidate x would be among the winners, adding another voter to the election who ranks x first does not cause x to lose. Surprisingly, a number of standard voting methods violate this natural property. In this paper, we investigate different ways of measuring the extent to which a voting method violates PI, using computer simulations. We consider the probability (under different probability models for preferences) of PI violations in randomly drawn profiles vs. profile-coalition pairs (involving coalitions of different sizes). We argue that in order to choose between a voting method that satisfies PI and one that does not, we should consider the probability of PI violation conditional on the voting methods choosing different winners. We should also relativize the probability of PI violation to what we call voter potency, the probability that a voter causes a candidate to lose. Although absolute frequencies of PI violations may be low, after this conditioning and relativization, we see that under certain voting methods that violate PI, much of a voter's potency is turned against them - in particular, against their desire to see their favorite candidate elected.

Links

PhilArchive



    Upload a copy of this work     Papers currently archived: 91,349

External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server

Through your library

Similar books and articles

Strategic Voting Under Uncertainty About the Voting Method.Wesley H. Holliday & Eric Pacuit - 2019 - Electronic Proceedings in Theoretical Computer Science 297:252–272.
Some Remarks on Dodgson's Voting Rule.Felix Brandt - 2009 - Mathematical Logic Quarterly 55 (4):460-463.
Voting by Eliminating Quantifiers.Dov M. Gabbay & Andrzej Szałas - 2009 - Studia Logica 92 (3):365-379.
Ethical Considerations on Quadratic Voting.Ben Laurence & Itai Sher - 2017 - Public Choice 1 (172):175-192.
A procedural model of voting.Sven Ove Hansson - 1992 - Theory and Decision 32 (3):269-301.
Voting (Insincerely) in Corporate Law.Zohar Goshen - 2001 - Theoretical Inquiries in Law 2 (2).

Analytics

Added to PP
2021-08-04

Downloads
21 (#715,461)

6 months
13 (#185,110)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Author Profiles

Wesley H. Holliday
University of California, Berkeley
Eric Pacuit
University of Maryland, College Park

Citations of this work

Axioms for Defeat in Democratic Elections.Wesley H. Holliday & Eric Pacuit - 2021 - Journal of Theoretical Politics 33 (4):475 - 524.

Add more citations

References found in this work

Probability and Evidence.Paul Horwich - 1973 - Philosophical Review 82 (4):547.
A theory of data.C. H. Coombs - 1960 - Psychological Review 67 (3):143-159.

Add more references