Condorcet Methods are Less Susceptible to Strategic Voting
نویسندگان
چکیده
Democratically choosing a single preference from three or more candidate options is not a straightforward matter. There are many competing ideas on how to aggregate rankings of candidates. However, the Gibbard-Satterthwaite theorem pessimistically concludes that no fair voting system is immune to strategic voting. In our work we analyze the likelihood of strategic voting of several popular voting systems, including Borda count, plurality and Kemeny-Young, under various vote distributions. When there are three candidates, we show that the Kemeny-Young method, and Condorcet methods in general, are categorically more resistant to strategic voting than many other common voting systems. We verify our results on voting data that we collected through an online survey on the 2012 US President Election.
منابع مشابه
When Voters Strategize, Approval Voting Elects Condorcet Winners but Condorcet Methods can Elect Condorcet Losers
We show that approval voting strategic equilibria are closely related to honest Condorcet Winners. There exists an approval equilibrium with a clear font-runner F and runner-up R if and only if the F is the clear Condorcet Winner and R the Condorcet runner-up. In contrast, we show that margins-based Condorcet methods can elect a Condorcet Loser with non-zero probibility when voters vote tactica...
متن کاملA note on Approval Voting and electing the Condorcet loser
Analytical representations are developed for the probability that Approval Voting (AV) elects the Condorcet Loser in three-alternative elections with large electorates. A comparison of AV is then made to Plurality Rule (PR) to show that AV is much less susceptible to the risk of electing the Condorcet loser than PR. All calculations in this analysis are based on IAC-like assumptions.
متن کاملDivision of the Humanities and Social Sciences California Institute of Technology Pasadena, California 91125 Some Properties of Hare Voting with Strategic Voters
This essay examines some properties of the Single Transferable Vote (Hare Voting) procedure for electing candidates in multi-member districts under the assumption that all voters are strategic. From the perspective of the most common criterion for evaluating voting procedures the extent to which they ensure the eventual selection of Condorcet winning candidates the results we offer in this essa...
متن کاملSequential Elimination vs. Instantaneous Voting
Voting procedures eliminating candidates sequentially and one-at-a-time based on repeated ballots are superior to well-known single-round voting rules: if voters are strategic the former will induce the Condorcet winner in unique equilibrium, whereas the latter may fail to select it. In addition, when there is no Condorcet winner the outcome of sequential elimination voting always belongs to th...
متن کاملApproval Voting on Large Poisson Games ∗
Approval Voting is analyzed in a context of large elections with strategic voters, the Myerson’s Large Poisson Games. Three examples show that this voting rule does not always correctly aggregate preferences. The first one shows that a candidate ranked first by more than half of the voters need not be the Winner of the election under Approval voting. In the second one, we show that it can be th...
متن کامل