Voting with Rank Dependent Scoring Rules
نویسندگان
چکیده
Positional scoring rules in voting compute the score of an alternative by summing the scores for the alternative induced by every vote. This summation principle ensures that all votes contribute equally to the score of an alternative. We relax this assumption and, instead, aggregate scores by taking into account the rank of a score in the ordered list of scores obtained from the votes. This defines a new family of voting rules, rank-dependent scoring rules (RDSRs), based on ordered weighted average (OWA) operators, which, include all scoring rules, and many others, most of which of new. We study some properties of these rules, and show, empirically, that certain RDSRs are less manipulable than Borda voting, across a variety of statistical cultures.
منابع مشابه
The Computational Impact of Partial Votes on Strategic Voting
In many real world elections, agents are not required to rank all candidates. We study three of the most common methods used to modify voting rules to deal with such partial votes. These methods modify scoring rules (like the Borda count), elimination style rules (like single transferable vote) and rules based on the tournament graph (like Copeland) respectively. We argue that with an eliminati...
متن کاملStrong Condorcet efficiency of scoring rules
In an election, an alternative is said to be a strong Condorcet winner when more than 50% of the voters rank this alternative first in their preference orders. The strong Condorcet efficiency of a voting rule is defined as the probability of electing the strong Condorcet winner, given that such an alternative exists. In this paper, we provide some analytical representations for the strong Condo...
متن کاملCharacterizing best-worst voting systems in the scoring context
An increasing body of theoretical and empirical work on discrete choice considers a choice design in which a person is asked to select both the best and the worst alternative in an available set of alternatives, in contrast to more traditional tasks such as where the person is asked to: select the best alternative; select the worst alternative; rank the alternatives. Here we consider voting sys...
متن کاملApproval voting and scoring rules with common values
We compare approval voting with other scoring rules for environments with common values and private information. For finite electorates, the best equilibrium under approval voting is superior to plurality rule or negative voting. For large electorates, if any scoring rule yields a sequence of equilibria that aggregates information, then approval voting must do so as well.
متن کاملComparison of Scoring Rules in Poisson Voting Games
Scoring rules are compared by the equilibria that they generate for simple elections with three candidates and voters drawn from large Poisson distributions. A calculus for comparing pivot probabilities in Poisson voting games is applied. For a symmetric Condorcet cycle, nonsymmetric discriminatory equilibria exist under best-rewarding scoring rules like plurality voting. A candidate who is uni...
متن کامل