Committee scoring rules form a rich class of aggregators of voters' preferences for the purpose of selecting subsets of objects with desired properties, e.g., a shortlist of candidates for an interview, a representative collective body such as a parliament, or a set of locations for a set of public facilities. In the spirit of celebrated Young's characterization result that axiomatizes single-winner scoring rules, we provide an axiomatic characterization of multiwinner committee scoring rules. We show that committee scoring rules---despite forming a remarkably general class of rules---are characterized by the set of four standard axioms, anonymity, neutrality, consistency and continuity, and by one axiom specific to multiwinner rules which we call committee dominance. In the course of our proof, we develop several new notions and techniques. In particular, we introduce and axiomatically characterize multiwinner decision scoring rules, a class of rules that broadly generalizes the well-known majority relation.
Probabilistic single-winner election rules have also been a subject of axiomatic studies. For instance, Gibbard @cite_3 investigated strategyproofness of probabilistic election systems and blue his result can be seen as an axiomatic characterization of the random dictatorship rule. Brandl et al. @cite_30 , by studying different types of consistency of probabilistic single-winner election rules, characterized the function returning maximal lotteries, first proposed by Fishburn @cite_34 .
@cite_30 @cite_34 @cite_3
2124837549 2006063189 2607903188 2066051963
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. The Gibbard-Satterthwaite theorem states that every nondictatorial election rule among at least three alternatives can be strategically manipulated. We prove a quantitative version of the Gibbard-Satterthwaite theorem: a random manipulation by a single random voter will succeed with a nonnegligible probability for any election rule among three alternatives that is far from being a dictatorship and from having only two alternatives in its range. This paper is an axiomatic study of consistent approval-based multi-winner rules, i.e., voting rules that select a fixed-size group of candidates based on approval ballots. We introduce the class of counting rules, provide an axiomatic characterization of this class and, in particular, show that counting rules are consistent. Building upon this result, we axiomatically characterize three important consistent multi-winner rules: Proportional Approval Voting, Multi-Winner Approval Voting and the Approval Chamberlin--Courant rule. Our results demonstrate the variety of multi-winner rules and illustrate three different, orthogonal principles that multi-winner voting rules may represent: individual excellence, diversity, and proportionality. In 1876, Lewis Carroll proposed a voting system in which the winner is the candidate who with the fewest changes in voters' preferences becomes a Condorcet winner—a candidate who beats all other candidates in pairwise majority-rule elections. Bartholdi, Tovey, and Trick provided a lower bound—NP-hardness—on the computational complexity of determining the election winner in Carroll's system. We provide a stronger lower bound and an upper bound that matches our lower bound. In particular, determining the winner in Carroll's system is complete for parallel access to NP, that is, it is complete for Theta_ 2 p for which it becomes the most natural complete problem known. It follows that determining the winner in Carroll's elections is not NP-complete unless the polynomial hierarchy collapses.