We propose a simple method for combining together voting rules that performs a run-off between the different winners of each voting rule. We prove that this combinator has several good properties. For instance, even if just one of the base voting rules has a desirable property like Condorcet consistency, the combination inherits this property. In addition, we prove that combining voting rules together in this way can make finding a manipulation more computationally difficult. Finally, we study the impact of this combinator on approximation methods that find close to optimal manipulations.
Moved to here. Different ways of combining voting rules to make manipulation computationally hard have been investigated recently. Conitzer and Sandholm @cite_10 studied the impact on the computational complexity of manipulation of adding an initial round of the Cup rule to a voting rule. This initial round eliminates half the candidates and makes manipulation NP-hard to compute for several voting rule including plurality and Borda. Elkind and Lipmaa @cite_2 extended this idea to a general technique for combining two voting rules. The first voting rule is run for some number of rounds to eliminate some of the candidates, before the second voting rule is applied to the candidates that remain. They proved that many such combinations of voting rules are NP-hard to manipulate. Note that theirs is a sequential combinator, in which the two rules are run in sequence, whilst ours (as we will see soon) is a parallel combinator, in which the two rules are run in parallel. More recently, Walsh and Xia @cite_8 showed that using a lottery to eliminate some of the voters (instead of some of the candidates) is another mechanism to make manipulation intractable to compute.
@cite_8 @cite_10 @cite_2
2052020474 1566914083 1972375916 2133138908
We investigate manipulation of the Borda voting rule, as well as two elimination style voting rules, Nanson's and Baldwin's voting rules, which are based on Borda voting. We argue that these rules have a number of desirable computational properties. For unweighted Borda voting, we prove that it is NP-hard for a coalition of two manipulators to compute a manipulation. This resolves a long-standing open problem in the computational complexity of manipulating common voting rules. We prove that manipulation of Baldwin's and Nanson's rules is computationally more difficult than manipulation of Borda, as it is NP-hard for a single manipulator to compute a manipulation. In addition, for Baldwin's and Nanson's rules with weighted votes, we prove that it is NP-hard for a coalition of manipulators to compute a manipulation with a small number of candidates.Because of these NP-hardness results, we compute manipulations using heuristic algorithms that attempt to minimise the number of manipulators. We propose several new heuristic methods. Experiments show that these methods significantly outperform the previously best known heuristic method for the Borda rule. Our results suggest that, whilst computing a manipulation of the Borda rule is NP-hard, computational complexity may provide only a weak barrier against manipulation in practice. In contrast to the Borda rule, our experiments with Baldwin's and Nanson's rules demonstrate that both of them are often more difficult to manipulate in practice. These results suggest that elimination style voting rules deserve further study. Aggregating the preferences of self-interested agents is a key problem for multiagent systems, and one general method for doing so is to vote over the alternatives (candidates). Unfortunately, the Gibbard-Satterthwaite theorem shows that when there are three or more candidates, all reasonable voting rules are manipulable (in the sense that there exist situations in which a voter would benefit from reporting its preferences insincerely). To circumvent this impossibility result, recent research has investigated whether it is possible to make finding a beneficial manipulation computationally hard. This approach has had some limited success, exhibiting rules under which the problem of finding a beneficial manipulation is NP-hard, #P-hard, or even PSPACE-hard. Thus, under these rules, it is unlikely that a computationally efficient algorithm can be constructed that always finds a beneficial manipulation (when it exists). However, this still does not preclude the existence of an efficient algorithm that often finds a successful manipulation (when it exists). There have been attempts to design a rule under which finding a beneficial manipulation is usually hard, but they have failed. To explain this failure, in this paper, we show that it is in fact impossible to design such a rule, if the rule is also required to satisfy another property: a large fraction of the manipulable instances are both weakly monotone, and allow the manipulators to make either of exactly two candidates win. We argue why one should expect voting rules to have this property, and show experimentally that common voting rules clearly satisfy it. We also discuss approaches for potentially circumventing this impossibility result. 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. Voting is a simple mechanism to combine together the preferences of multiple agents. Unfortunately, agents may try to manipulate the result by mis-reporting their preferences. One barrier that might exist to such manipulation is computational complexity. In particular, it has been shown that it is NP-hard to compute how to manipulate a number of different voting rules. However, NP-hardness only bounds the worst-case complexity. Recent theoretical results suggest that manipulation may often be easy in practice. In this paper, we show that empirical studies are useful in improving our understanding of this issue. We consider two settings which represent the two types of complexity results that have been identified in this area: manipulation with unweighted votes by a single agent, and manipulation with weighted votes by a coalition of agents. In the first case, we consider Single Transferable Voting (STV), and in the second case, we consider veto voting. STV is one of the few voting rules used in practice where it is NP-hard to compute how a single agent can manipulate the result when votes are unweighted. It also appears one of the harder voting rules to manipulate since it involves multiple rounds. On the other hand, veto voting is one of the simplest representatives of voting rules where it is NP-hard to compute how a coalition of weighted agents can manipulate the result. In our experiments, we sample a number of distributions of votes including uniform, correlated and real world elections. In many of the elections in our experiments, it was easy to compute how to manipulate the result or to prove that manipulation was impossible. Even when we were able to identify a situation in which manipulation was hard to compute (e.g. when votes are highly correlated and the election is "hung"), we found that the computational difficulty of computing manipulations was somewhat precarious (e.g. with such "hung" elections, even a single uncorrelated voter was enough to make manipulation easy to compute).