In many real world situations, collective decisions are made using voting. Moreover, scenarios such as committee or board elections require voting rules that return multiple winners. In multi-winner approval voting (AV), an agent may vote for as many candidates as they wish. Winners are chosen by tallying up the votes and choosing the top- @math candidates receiving the most votes. An agent may manipulate the vote to achieve a better outcome by voting in a way that does not reflect their true preferences. In complex and uncertain situations, agents may use heuristics to strategize, instead of incurring the additional effort required to compute the manipulation which most favors this http URL this paper, we examine voting behavior in multi-winner approval voting scenarios with complete information. We show that people generally manipulate their vote to obtain a better outcome, but often do not identify the optimal manipulation. Instead, voters tend to prioritize the candidates with the highest utilities. Using simulations, we demonstrate the effectiveness of these heuristics in situations where agents only have access to partial information.
Three recent papers both address strategic voting under the plurality rule where agents are making decisions in uncertain environments. First, @cite_36 study the voting behavior of agents under the plurality rule with three options. They find that the amount of information available to the voters affects the decision on whether or not to vote strategically and that in many cases the strategic decisions do not affect the outcome of the plurality vote.
@cite_36
2245193660 1533108901 1485809414 2151939563
Plurality voting is perhaps the most commonly used way to aggregate the preferences of multiple voters. The purpose of this paper is to provide a comprehensive study of people's voting behaviour in various online settings under the Plurality rule. Our empirical methodology consisted of a voting game in which participants vote for a single candidate out of a given set. We implemented voting games that replicate two common real-world voting scenarios: In the first, a single voter votes once after seeing a large pre-election poll. In the second game, several voters play simultaneously, and change their vote as the game progresses, as in small committees. The winning candidate in each game (and hence the subject's payment) is determined using the plurality rule. For each of these settings we generated hundreds of game instances, varying conditions such as the number of voters and their preferences. We show that people can be classified into at least three groups, two of which are not engaged in any strategic behavior. The third and largest group tends to select the natural "default" action when there is no clear strategic alternative. When an active strategic decision can be made that improves their immediate payoff, people usually choose that strategic alternative. Our study has insight for multi-agent system designers in uncovering patterns that provide reasonable predictions of voters' behaviors, which may facilitate the design of agents that support people or act autonomously in voting systems. We theoretically and experimentally study voter behavior in a setting characterized by plurality rule and mandatory voting, where voters choose from three options. We are interested in the occurrence of strategic voting in an environment where Condorcet cycles may occur. In particular, we focus on how information about the distribution of preferences affects strategic behavior. We also vary the relative importance of the second preferred option to investigate how this affects the strategic vote. Quantal response equilibrium analysis is used to analyze the game and proves to be a good predictor for the experimental data. Our results indeed show that strategic voting arises, the extent of which depends on (i) the availability of information; (ii) the relative importance of the intermediate candidate; (iii) the electorate's relative support for one's preferred candidate; and (iv) the relative position of the plurality-supported candidate in a voter's preference ordering. Our results show that information serves as a coordination device where strategic voting does not harm the plurality-preferred candidate's chances of winning. We present a systematic study of Plurality elections with strategic voters who, in addition to having preferences over election winners, also have secondary preferences, governing their behavior when their vote cannot affect the election outcome. Specifically, we study two models that have been recently considered in the literature: lazy voters, who prefer to abstain when they are not pivotal, and truth-biased voters, who prefer to vote truthfully when they are not pivotal. For both lazy and truth-biased voters, we are interested in their behavior under different tie-breaking rules (lexicographic rule, random voter rule, random candidate rule). Two of these six combinations of secondary preferences and tie-breaking rules have been studied in prior work; for the remaining four, we characterize pure Nash equilibria (PNE) of the resulting strategic games and study the complexity of related computational problems. We then use these results to analyze the impact of different secondary preferences and tie-breaking rules on the election outcomes. Our results extend to settings where some of the voters are non-strategic. Many analyses of plurality-rule elections predict the complete coordination of strategic voting, and hence support for only two candidates. Here I suggest that stable multi-candidate support will arise in equilibrium. A group of voters must partially coordinate behind one of two challenging candidates in order to dislodge a disliked incumbent. In a departure from existing models, the popular support for each challenger is uncertain. This support must be inferred from the private observation of informative signals, such as the social communication of preferences throughout the electorate, or the imperfect observation of opinion polls. The uniquely stable voting equilibrium entails only limited strategic voting and hence incomplete coordination. This is due to the surprising presence of negative feedback: an increase in the degree of strategic voting by others reduces the incentives for an individual to vote strategically. The incentive to vote strategically is lower in relatively marginal elections, after controlling for the distance from contention of a trailing preferred challenger. A calibration of the model applied to the UK General Election of 1997 is consistent with the impact of strategic voting and the reported accuracy of voters understanding of the electoral situation. It suggests that nearly 50 seats may have been lost by the Conservative party due to strategic voting.