Election control considers the problem of an adversary who attempts to tamper with a voting process, in order to either ensure that their favored candidate wins (constructive control) or another candidate loses (destructive control). As online social networks have become significant sources of information for potential voters, a new tool in an attacker's arsenal is to effect control by harnessing social influence, for example, by spreading fake news and other forms of misinformation through online social media. We consider the computational problem of election control via social influence, studying the conditions under which finding good adversarial strategies is computationally feasible. We consider two objectives for the adversary in both the constructive and destructive control settings: probability and margin of victory (POV and MOV, respectively). We present several strong negative results, showing, for example, that the problem of maximizing POV is inapproximable for any constant factor. On the other hand, we present approximation algorithms which provide somewhat weaker approximation guarantees, such as bicriteria approximations for the POV objective and constant-factor approximations for MOV. Finally, we present mixed integer programming formulations for these problems. Experimental results show that our approximation algorithms often find near-optimal control strategies, indicating that election control through social influence is a salient threat to election integrity.
Our work is closely related to two research areas: election control and influence maximization. These bodies of work are separate: to our knowledge there is no previous work which considers election control social influence. The computational study of election control was started by @cite_0 , who considered constructive control. The destructive control setting was introduced by @cite_25 . A large body of work has studied election control under different settings and voting rules @cite_41 @cite_18 including bribing voters @cite_27 @cite_9 @cite_28 @cite_15 @cite_34 , adding or deleting voters @cite_32 @cite_31 @cite_8 @cite_40 , and adding or deleting candidates @cite_20 @cite_8 @cite_40 . Another topic is strategic behavior on the part of the voters themselves @cite_16 @cite_36 @cite_7 . The main difference between our work and previous work on election control is that we introduce and analyze social influence as a novel mechanism for both constructive and destructive control.
@cite_18 @cite_31 @cite_7 @cite_8 @cite_41 @cite_28 @cite_9 @cite_36 @cite_32 @cite_16 @cite_0 @cite_27 @cite_40 @cite_15 @cite_34 @cite_25 @cite_20
2950252656 2026607260 1644339822 103664523 1990416099 2123942784 1972375916 2951082587 2264079072 14982402 2100229481 196507789 2167625605 2963196613 2077594988 2152389135 1819881025
We study the control complexity of fallback voting. Like manipulation and bribery, electoral control describes ways of changing the outcome of an election; unlike manipulation or bribery attempts, control actions---such as adding deleting partitioning either candidates or voters---modify the participative structure of an election. Via such actions one can try to either make a favorite candidate win ("constructive control") or prevent a despised candidate from winning ("destructive control"). Computational complexity can be used to protect elections from control attempts, i.e., proving an election system resistant to some type of control shows that the success of the corresponding control action, though not impossible, is computationally prohibitive. We show that fallback voting, an election system combining approval with majority voting, is resistant to each of the common types of candidate control and to each common type of constructive control. Among natural election systems with a polynomial-time winner problem, only plurality and sincere-strategy preference-based approval voting (SP-AV) were previously known to be fully resistant to candidate control, and only Copeland voting and SP-AV were previously known to be fully resistant to constructive control. However, plurality has fewer resistances to voter control, Copeland voting has fewer resistances to destructive control, and SP-AV (which like fallback voting has 19 out of 22 proven control resistances) is arguably less natural a system than fallback voting. Elections are a central model in a variety of areas. This paper studies parameterized computational complexity of five control problems in the Maximin election. We obtain the following results: constructive control by adding candidates is W[2]-hard with respect to the parameter ''number of added candidates''; both constructive and destructive control by adding deleting voters are W[1]-hard with respect to the parameter ''number of added deleted voters''. In this paper, we propose a framework to study a general class of strategic behavior in voting, which we call vote operations. We prove the following theorem: if we fix the number of alternatives, generate @math votes i.i.d. according to a distribution @math , and let @math go to infinity, then for any @math , with probability at least @math , the minimum number of operations that are needed for the strategic individual to achieve her goal falls into one of the following four categories: (1) 0, (2) @math , (3) @math , and (4) @math . This theorem holds for any set of vote operations, any individual vote distribution @math , and any integer generalized scoring rule, which includes (but is not limited to) almost all commonly studied voting rules, e.g., approval voting, all positional scoring rules (including Borda, plurality, and veto), plurality with runoff, Bucklin, Copeland, maximin, STV, and ranked pairs. We also show that many well-studied types of strategic behavior fall under our framework, including (but not limited to) constructive destructive manipulation, bribery, and control by adding deleting votes, margin of victory, and minimum manipulation coalition size. Therefore, our main theorem naturally applies to these problems. Control of elections refers to attempts by an agent to, via such actions as addition deletion partition of candidates or voters, ensure that a given candidate wins (Bartholdi, Tovey, & Trick 1992). An election system in which such an agent's computational task is NP-hard is said to be resistant to the given type of control. Aside from election systems with an NP-hard winner problem, the only systems known to be resistant to all the standard control types are highly artificial election systems created by hybridization (Hemaspaandra, Hemaspaandra, & Rothe 2007b). In this paper, we prove that an election system developed by the 13th century mystic Ramon Llull and the well-studied Copeland election system are both resistant to all the standard types of (constructive) electoral control other than one variant of addition of candidates. This is the most comprehensive resistance to control yet achieved by any natural election system whose winner problem is in P. In addition, we show that Llull and Copeland voting are very broadly resistant to bribery attacks, and we integrate the potential irrationality of voter preferences into many of our results. Voting systems are common tools in a variety of areas. This paper studies parameterized computational complexity of control of Plurality, Condorcet and Approval voting systems, respectively. The types of controls considered include adding or deleting candidates or voters, under constructive or destructive setting. We obtain the following results: (1) constructive control by adding candidates in Plurality voting is W[2]-hard with respect to the parameter ''number of added candidates'', (2) destructive control by adding candidates in Plurality voting is W[2]-hard with respect to the parameter ''number of added candidates'', (3) constructive control by adding voters in Condorcet voting is W[1]-hard with respect to the parameter ''number of added voters'', (4) constructive control by deleting voters in Condorcet voting is W[1]-hard with respect to the parameter ''number of deleted voters'', (5) constructive control by adding voters in Approval voting is W[1]-hard with respect to the parameter ''number of added voters'', and (6) constructive control by deleting voters in Approval voting is W[2]-hard with respect to the parameter ''number of deleted voters''. In 1992, Bartholdi, Tovey, and Trick opened the study of control attacks on elections-- attempts to improve the election outcome by such actions as adding deleting candidates or voters. That work has led to many results on how algorithms can be used to find attacks on elections and how complexity-theoretic hardness results can be used as shields against attacks. However, all the work in this line has assumed that the attacker employs just a single type of attack. In this paper, we model and study the case in which the attacker launches a multipronged (i.e., multimode) attack. We do so to more realistically capture the richness of real-life settings. For example, an attacker might simultaneously try to suppress some voters, attract new voters into the election, and introduce a spoiler candidate. Our model provides a unified framework for such varied attacks. By constructing polynomialtime multiprong attack algorithms we prove that for various election systems even such concerted, flexible attacks can be perfectly planned in deterministic polynomial time. 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. Although manipulation and bribery have been extensively studied under weighted voting, there has been almost no work done on election control under weighted voting. This is unfortunate, since weighted voting appears in many important natural settings. In this paper, we study the complexity of controlling the outcome of weighted elections through adding and deleting voters. We obtain polynomial-time algorithms, NP-completeness results, and for many NP-complete cases, approximation algorithms. In particular, for scoring rules we completely characterize the complexity of weighted voter control. Our work shows that for quite a few important cases, either polynomial-time exact algorithms or polynomial-time approximation algorithms exist. We study the computational complexity of candidate control in elections with few voters (that is, we take the number of voters as a parameter). We consider both the standard scenario of adding and deleting candidates, where one asks if a given candidate can become a winner (or, in the destructive case, can be precluded from winning) by adding deleting some candidates, and a combinatorial scenario where adding deleting a candidate automatically means adding deleting a whole group of candidates. Our results show that the parameterized complexity of candidate control (with the number of voters as the parameter) is much more varied than in the setting with many voters. We study the complexity of influencing elections through bribery: How computationally complex is it for an external actor to determine whether by a certain amount of bribing voters a specified candidate can be made the election's winner? We study this problem for election systems as varied as scoring protocols and Dodgson voting, and in a variety of settings regarding homogeneous-vs.-nonhomogeneous electorate bribability, bounded-size-vs.-arbitrary-sized candidate sets, weighted-vs.-unweighted voters, and succinct-vs.-nonsuccinct input specification. We obtain both polynomial-time bribery algorithms and proofs of the intractability of bribery, and indeed our results show that the complexity of bribery is extremely sensitive to the setting. For example, we find settings in which bribery is NP-complete but manipulation (by voters) is in P, and we find settings in which bribing weighted voters is NP-complete but bribing voters with individual bribe thresholds is in P. For the broad class of elections (including plurality, Borda, k-approval, and veto) known as scoring protocols, we prove a dichotomy result for bribery of weighted voters: We find a simple-to-evaluate condition that classifies every case as either NP-complete or in P. We study the complexity of influencing elections through bribery: How computationally complex is it for an external actor to determine whether by paying certain voters to change their preferences a specified candidate can be made the election's winner? We study this problem for election systems as varied as scoring protocols and Dodgson voting, and in a variety of settings regarding homogeneous-vs.-nonhomogeneous electorate bribability, bounded-size-vs.-arbitrary-sized candidate sets, weighted-vs.-unweighted voters, and succinct-vs.-nonsuccinct input specification. We obtain both polynomial-time bribery algorithms and proofs of the intractability of bribery, and indeed our results show that the complexity of bribery is extremely sensitive to the setting. For example, we find settings in which bribery is NP-complete but manipulation (by voters) is in P, and we find settings in which bribing weighted voters is NP-complete but bribing voters with individual bribe thresholds is in P. For the broad class of elections (including plurality, Borda, k- approval,and veto) known as scoring protocols, we prove a dichotomy result for bribery of weighted voters: We find a simple-to-evaluate condition that classifies every case as either NP-complete or in P. 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. There are different ways for an external agent to influence the outcome of an election. We concentrate on "control" by adding or deleting candidates of an election. Our main focus is to investigate the parameterized complexity of various control problems for different voting systems. To this end, we introduce natural digraph problems that may be of independent interest. They help in determining the parameterized complexity of control for different voting systems including Llull, Copeland, and plurality votings. Devising several parameterized reductions, we provide a parameterized complexity overview of the digraph and control problems with respect to natural parameters. We study sincere-strategy preference-based approval voting (SP-AV), a system proposed by Brams and Sanver [1] and here adjusted so as to coerce admissibility of the votes (rather than excluding inadmissible votes a priori), with respect to procedural control. In such control scenarios, an external agent seeks to change the outcome of an election via actions such as adding deleting partitioning either candidates or voters. SP-AV combines the voters' preference rankings with their approvals of candidates, where in elections with at least two candidates the voters' approval strategies are adjusted – if needed – to approve of their most-preferred candidate and to disapprove of their least-preferred candidate. This rule coerces admissibility of the votes even in the presence of control actions, and hybridizes, in effect, approval with pluralitiy voting. We prove that this system is computationally resistant (i.e., the corresponding control problems are NP-hard) to 19 out of 22 types of constructive and destructive control. Thus, SP-AV has more resistances to control than is currently known for any other natural voting system with a polynomial-time winner problem. In particular, SP-AV is (after Copeland voting, see [2, 3]) the second natural voting system with an easy winner-determination procedure that is known to have full resistance to constructive control, and unlike Copeland voting it in addition displays broad resistance to destructive control (© 2009 WILEY-VCH Verlag GmbH & Co. KGaA, Weinheim) There are different ways for an external agent to influence the outcome of an election. We concentrate on ''control'' by adding or deleting candidates. Our main focus is to investigate the parameterized complexity of various control problems for different voting systems. To this end, we introduce natural digraph problems that may be of independent interest. They help in determining the parameterized complexity of control for different voting systems including Llull, Copeland, and plurality voting. Devising several parameterized reductions, we provide an overview of the parameterized complexity of the digraph and control problems with respect to natural parameters such as adding deleting only a bounded number of candidates or having only few voters. An important research topic in the field of computational social choice is the complexity of various forms of dishonest behavior, such as manipulation, control, and bribery. While much of the work on this topic assumes that the cheating party has full information about the election, recently there have been a number of attempts to gauge the complexity of non-truthful behavior under uncertainty about the voters' preferences. In this paper, we analyze the complexity of (coalitional) manipulation for the setting where there is uncertainty about the voting rule: the manipulator(s) know that the election will be conducted using a voting rule from a given list, and need to select their votes so as to succeed no matter which voting rule will eventually be chosen. We identify a large class of voting rules such that arbitrary combinations of rules from this class are easy to manipulate; in particular, we show that this is the case for single-voter manipulation and essentially all easy-to-manipulate voting rules, and for coalitional manipulation and k-approval. While a combination of a hard-to-manipulate rule with an easy-to-manipulate one is usually hard to manipulate---we prove this in the context of coalitional manipulation for several combinations of prominent voting rules---we also provide counterexamples showing that this is not always the case. Walsh [23,22], [9], and [20] studied various voting systems empirically and showed that they can often be manipulated effectively, despite their manipulation problems being NP-hard. Such an experimental approach is sorely missing for NP-hard control problems, where control refers to attempts to tamper with the outcome of elections by adding delet-ing partitioning either voters or candidates. We experimentally tackle NP-hard control problems for Bucklin and fallback voting, which among natural voting systems with efficient winner determination are the systems currently known to display the broadest resistance to control in terms of NP-hardness [12,11]. We also investigate control resistance experimentally for plurality voting, one of the first voting systems analyzed with respect to electoral control [1,18]. Our findings indicate that NP-hard control problems can often be solved effectively in practice. Moreover, our experiments allow a more fine-grained analysis and comparison--across various control scenarios, vote distribution models, and voting systems--than merely stating NP-hardness for all these control problems.