Voting Systems that Combine Approval and Preference
نویسندگان
چکیده
Information on the rankings and information on the approval of candidates in an election, though related, are fundamentally different—one cannot be derived from the other. Both kinds of information are important in the determination of social choices. We propose a way of combining them in two hybrid voting systems, preference approval voting (PAV) and fallback voting (FV), that satisfy several desirable properties, including monotonicity. Both systems may give different winners from standard ranking and nonranking voting systems. PAV, especially, encourages candidates to take coherent majoritarian positions, but it is more information-demanding than FV. PAV and FV are manipulable through voters’ contracting or expanding their approval sets, but a 3-candidate dynamic poll model suggests that Condorcet winners, and candidates ranked first or second by the most voters if there is no Condorcet winner, will be favored, though not necessarily in equilibrium.
منابع مشابه
The control complexity of sincere strategy preference based approval voting and of fallback voting, and a study of optimal lobbying and Junta distributions for SAT
While voting systems were originally used in political science, they are now also of central importance in various areas of computer science, such as artificial intelligence (in particular within multiagent systems). Brams and Sanver [BS06] introduced sincere-strategy preference-based approval voting (SP-AV) and fallback voting (FV), two election systems which combine the preference rankings of...
متن کاملOn the Manipulability of Votes: The Case of Approval Voting
The famous result of Gibbard and Satterthwaite shows that every voting procedure is manipulable if the voters can have any preferences over the candidates. That is, a voter may improve the voting result by not voting according to his true preference. Approval voting, introduced by Brams and Fishburn, is not manipulable if preferences are dichotomous: each voter only distinguishes between accept...
متن کاملBucklin Voting is Broadly Resistant to Control
Electoral control models ways of changing the outcome of an election via such actions as adding/deleting/partitioning either candidates or voters. These actions modify an election’s participation structure and aim at either making a favorite candidate win (“constructive control”) or prevent a despised candidate from winning (“destructive control”), which yields a total of 22 standard control sc...
متن کاملApproval voting and Arrow's impossibility theorem
Approval voting has attracted considerable interest among voting theorists, but they have rarely investigated it in the Arrovian framework of social welfare functions (SWF) and never connected it with Arrow’s impossibility theorem. This note explores these two directions. Assuming that voters have dichotomous preferences, it first characterizes approval voting in terms of its SWF properties and...
متن کاملStrategy in Range Voting and COAF voting systems
(1) We define “range voting.” (2) More generally we define the wide class of “COAF voting systems,” (3) We reach an understanding of optimum voter strategy in COAF voting systems, at least in a certain probabilistic model, the “Gaussian model,” of how the other voters behave, and in the limit V → ∞ of a large number of voters. (4) This understanding also works for Condorcet and IRV voting (whic...
متن کامل