We consider distributed elections, where there is a center and k sites. In such distributed elections, each voter has preferences over some set of candidates, and each voter is assigned to exactly one site such that each site is aware only of the voters assigned to it. The center is able to directly communicate with each of the sites. We are interested in designing communication-efficient protocols, allowing the center to maintain (i.e., declare) a candidate which, with arbitrary high probability, is guaranteed to be a winner, or at least close to being a winner. We consider various single-winner voting rules, such as variants of Approval voting and scoring rules, tournament-based voting rules, and several round-based voting rules. For these voting rules, we show that, using communication which is logarithmic in the number of voters, it is possible for the center to maintain such approximate winners. We complement our protocols with lower bounds. Our results have implications in various scenarios, such as aggregating customer preferences in on-line shopping websites or supermarket chains and collecting votes from different polling stations of political elections.
Compilation complexity In a series of papers, @cite_14 @cite_15 and Xia and Conitzer @cite_3 define and study the compilation complexity of various voting rules; in their model, the electorate is partitioned into two parts, and the general concern is the amount of communication which needs to be transmitted between the two parts, in order to determine an election winner. In compilation complexity there are no rounds of communication, as only one message is being passed between the two parts. This stands in contrast to our protocols, which use small amounts of communication due to their use of several rounds of communication between the center and the sites.
@cite_15 @cite_14 @cite_3
196507789 2121751780 1948781505 2124837549
In computational social choice, one important problem is to take the votes of a subelectorate (subset of the voters), and summarize them using a small number of bits. This needs to be done in such a way that, if all that we know is the summary, as well as the votes of voters outside the subelectorate, we can conclude which of the m alternatives wins. This corresponds to the notion of compilation complexity, the minimum number of bits required to summarize the votes for a particular rule, which was introduced by [IJCAI-09]. We study three different types of compilation complexity. The first, studied by , depends on the size of the subelectorate but not on the size of the complement (the voters outside the subelectorate). The second depends on the size of the complement but not on the size of the subelectorate. The third depends on both. We first investigate the relations among the three types of compilation complexity. Then, we give upper and lower bounds on all three types of compilation complexity for the most prominent voting rules. We show that for l-approval (when l ≤ m 2), Borda, and Bucklin, the bounds for all three types are asymptotically tight, up to a multiplicative constant; for l-approval (when l > m 2), plurality with runoff, all Condorcet consistent rules that are based on unweighted majority graphs (including Copeland and voting trees), and all Condorcet consistent rules that are based on the order of pairwise elections (including ranked pairs and maximin), the bounds for all three types are asymptotically tight up to a multiplicative constant when the sizes of the subelectorate and its complement are both larger than m1+∊ for some ∊ > 0. We determine the communication complexity of the common voting rules. The rules (sorted by their communication complexity from low to high) are plurality, plurality with runoff, single transferable vote (STV), Condorcet, approval, Bucklin, cup, maximin, Borda, Copeland, and ranked pairs. For each rule, we first give a deterministic communication protocol and an upper bound on the number of bits communicated in it; then, we give a lower bound on (even the nondeterministic) communication requirements of the voting rule. The bounds match for all voting rules except STV and maximin. This paper considers the communication complexity of approximating common voting rules. Both upper and lower bounds are presented. For n voters and m alternatives, it is shown that for all e e (0, 1), the communication complexity of obtaining a 1 - e approximation to Borda is O(log (1 e)nm). A lower bound of Ω(nm) is provided for fixed small values of e. The communication complexity of computing the true Borda winner is Ω(nm log(m)) [5]. Thus, in the case of Borda, one can obtain arbitrarily good approximations with less communication overhead than is required to compute the true Borda winner. For other voting rules, no such 1±e approximation scheme exists. In particular, it is shown that the communication complexity of computing any constant factor approximation, ρ, to Bucklin is Ω(nm ρ2). Conitzer and Sandholm [5] show that the communication complexity of computing the true Bucklin winner is O(nm). However, we show that for all δ e (0, 1), the communication complexity of computing a mδ approximate winner in Bucklin elections is O(nm1 - δ log(m)). For δ e (1 2, 1), a lower bound of ω(nm1-2δ) is also provided. Similar lower bounds are presented on the communication complexity of computing approximate winners in Copeland elections. We investigate two systems of fully proportional representation suggested by Chamberlin & Courant and Monroe. Both systems assign a representative to each voter so that the "sum of misrepresentations" is minimized. The winner determination problem for both systems is known to be NP-hard, hence this work aims at investigating whether there are variants of the proposed rules and or specific electorates for which these problems can be solved efficiently. As a variation of these rules, instead of minimizing the sum of misrepresentations, we considered minimizing the maximal misrepresentation introducing effectively two new rules. In the general case these "minimax" versions of classical rules appeared to be still NP-hard. We investigated the parameterized complexity of winner determination of the two classical and two new rules with respect to several parameters. Here we have a mixture of positive and negative results: e.g., we proved fixed-parameter tractability for the parameter the number of candidates but fixed-parameter intractability for the number of winners. For single-peaked electorates our results are overwhelmingly positive: we provide polynomial-time algorithms for most of the considered problems. The only rule that remains NP-hard for single-peaked electorates is the classical Monroe rule.