Liquid democracy is a collective decision making paradigm which lies between direct and representative democracy. One of its main features is that voters can delegate their votes in a transitive manner such that: A delegates to B and B delegates to C leads to A indirectly delegates to C. These delegations can be effectively empowered by implementing liquid democracy in a social network, so that voters can delegate their votes to any of their neighbors in the network. However, it is uncertain that such a delegation process will lead to a stable state where all voters are satisfied with the people representing them. We study the stability (w.r.t. voters preferences) of the delegation process in liquid democracy and model it as a game in which the players are the voters and the strategies are their possible delegations. We answer several questions on the equilibria of this process in any social network or in social networks that correspond to restricted types of graphs. We show that a Nash-equilibrium may not exist, and that it is even NP-complete to decide whether one exists or not. This holds even if the social network is a complete graph or a bounded degree graph. We further show that this existence problem is W[1]-hard w.r.t. the treewidth of the social network. Besides these hardness results, we demonstrate that an equilibrium always exists whatever the preferences of the voters iff the social network is a tree. We design a dynamic programming procedure to determine some desirable equilibria (e.g., minimizing the dissatisfaction of the voters) in polynomial time for tree social networks. Lastly, we study the convergence of delegation dynamics. Unfortunately, when an equilibrium exists, we show that a best response dynamics may not converge, even if the social network is a path or a complete graph.
Our approach is closest to this last work as we consider the same type of delegation games. However, our model of preferences over guru is more general as we assume that each voter has a preference order over her possible gurus. These preference orders may be dictated by competence levels and types of voters as in @cite_7 . However, we do not make such hypothesis as the criteria to choose a delegate are numerous: geographic locality, cultural, political or religious identity, et caetera. Considering this more general framework strongly modifies the resulting delegation games.
@cite_7
2151939563 2063004177 2269108872 1972375916
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. We study the House Allocation problem (also known as the Assignment problem), i.e., the problem of allocating a set of objects among a set of agents, where each agent has ordinal preferences (possibly involving ties) over a subset of the objects. We focus on truthful mechanisms without monetary transfers for finding large Pareto optimal matchings. It is straightforward to show that no deterministic truthful mechanism can approximate a maximum cardinality Pareto optimal matching with ratio better than 2. We thus consider randomized mechanisms. We give a natural and explicit extension of the classical Random Serial Dictatorship Mechanism (RSDM) specifically for the House Allocation problem where preference lists can include ties. We thus obtain a universally truthful randomized mechanism for finding a Pareto optimal matching and show that it achieves an approximation ratio of eovere-1. The same bound holds even when agents have priorities (weights) and our goal is to find a maximum weight (as opposed to maximum cardinality) Pareto optimal matching. On the other hand we give a lower bound of 18 over 13 on the approximation ratio of any universally truthful Pareto optimal mechanism in settings with strict preferences. In the case that the mechanism must additionally be non-bossy, an improved lower bound of eovere-1 holds. This lower bound is tight given that RSDM for strict preference lists is non-bossy. We moreover interpret our problem in terms of the classical secretary problem and prove that our mechanism provides the best randomized strategy of the administrator who interviews the applicants. Weighted voting games provide a simple model of decision-making in human societies and multi-agent systems. Such games are described by a set of players, a list of [email protected]? weights, and a quota; a coalition of the players is said to be winning if the total weight of its members meets or exceeds the quota. The power of a player in a weighted voting game is traditionally identified with her Shapley-Shubik index or her Banzhaf index, two classic power measures that reflect the [email protected]?s marginal contribution under different coalition formation scenarios. In this paper, we investigate by how much one can change a [email protected]?s power, as measured by these indices, by modifying the quota. We give tight bounds on the changes in the individual [email protected]?s power that can result from a change in quota. We then describe an efficient algorithm for determining whether there is a value of the quota that makes a given player a dummy, i.e., reduces her power (as measured by both indices) to 0. We also study how the choice of quota can affect the relative power of the players. Finally, we investigate scenarios where [email protected]?s choice in setting the quota is constrained. We show that optimally choosing between two values of the quota is complete for the complexity class PP, which is believed to be significantly more powerful than NP. On the other hand, we empirically demonstrate that even small changes in quota can have a significant effect on a [email protected]?s power. In multiagent settings where the agents have different preferences, preference aggregation is a central issue. Voting is a general method for preference aggregation, but seminal results have shown that all general voting protocols are manipulable. One could try to avoid manipulation by using protocols where determining a beneficial manipulation is hard. Especially among computational agents, it is reasonable to measure this hardness by computational complexity. Some earlier work has been done in this area, but it was assumed that the number of voters and candidates is unbounded. Such hardness results lose relevance when the number of candidates is small, because manipulation algorithms that are exponential only in the number of candidates (and only slightly so) might be available. We give such an algorithm for an individual agent to manipulate the Single Transferable Vote (STV) protocol, which has been shown hard to manipulate in the above sense. This motivates the core of this article, which derives hardness results for realistic elections where the number of candidates is a small constant (but the number of voters can be large). The main manipulation question we study is that of coalitional manipulation by weighted voters. (We show that for simpler manipulation problems, manipulation cannot be hard with few candidates.) We study both constructive manipulation (making a given candidate win) and destructive manipulation (making a given candidate not win). We characterize the exact number of candidates for which manipulation becomes hard for the plurality, Borda, STV, Copeland, maximin, veto, plurality with runoff, regular cup, and randomized cup protocols. We also show that hardness of manipulation in this setting implies hardness of manipulation by an individual in unweighted settings when there is uncertainty about the others' votes (but not vice-versa). To our knowledge, these are the first results on the hardness of manipulation when there is uncertainty about the others' votes.