Voting is a simple mechanism to aggregate the preferences of agents. Many voting rules have been shown to be NP-hard to manipulate. However, a number of recent theoretical results suggest that this complexity may only be in the worst-case since manipulation is often easy in practice. In this paper, we show that empirical studies are useful in improving our understanding of this issue. We demonstrate that there is a smooth transition in the probability that a coalition can elect a desired candidate using the veto rule as the size of the manipulating coalition increases. We show that a rescaled probability curve displays a simple and universal form independent of the size of the problem. We argue that manipulation of the veto rule is asymptotically easy for many independent and identically distributed votes even when the coalition of manipulators is critical in size. Based on this argument, we identify a situation in which manipulation is computationally hard. This is when votes are highly correlated and the election is "hung". We show, however, that even a single uncorrelated voter is enough to make manipulation easy again.
Coleman and Teague provide polynomial algorithms to compute a manipulation for the STV rule when either the number of voters or the number of candidates is fixed @cite_7 . They also conducted an empirical study which demonstrates that only relatively small coalitions are needed to change the elimination order of the STV rule. They observe that most uniform and random elections are not trivially manipulable using a simple greedy heuristic.
@cite_7
1618180659
We study the manipulation of voting schemes, where a voter lies about their preferences in the hope of improving the election's outcome. All voting schemes are potentially manipulable. However, some, such as the Single Transferable Vote (STV) scheme used in Australian elections, are resistant to manipulation because it is NP-hard to compute the manipulating vote(s). We concentrate on STV and some natural generalisations of it called Scoring Elimination Protocols. We show that the hardness result for STV is true only if both the number of voters and the number of candidates are unbounded---we provide algorithms for a manipulation if either of these is fixed. This means that manipulation would not be hard in practice when either number is small. Next we show that the weighted version of the manipulation problem is NP-hard for all Scoring Elimination Protocols except one, which we provide an algorithm for manipulating. Finally we experimentally test a heuristic for solving the manipulation problem and conclude that it would not usually be effective. 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). Voting is a simple mechanism to combine together the preferences of multiple agents. Agents may try to manipulate the result of voting 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 study empirically the manipulability of single transferable voting (STV) to determine if computational complexity is really a barrier to manipulation. STV was one of the first voting rules shown to be NP-hard. It also appears one of the harder voting rules to manipulate. We sample a number of distributions of votes including uniform and real world elections. In almost every election in our experiments, it was easy to compute how a single agent could manipulate the election or to prove that manipulation by a single agent was impossible. 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. Multi-winner elections model scenarios where voters must select a fixed-size group of candidates based on their individual preferences. In such scenarios, it is often the case that voters are incentivized to manipulate, i.e. misreport their preferences in order to obtain a better outcome. In this paper, we study the complexity of manipulating multi-winner elections under scoring rules, with a particular focus on the role of tie-breaking rules. We consider both lexicographic tie-breaking rules, which break ties according to a fixed ordering of the candidates, and a natural randomized tie-breaking rule. We describe polynomial-time manipulation algorithms for several special cases of our problem. Specifically, we show that finding a successful manipulation is easy if the underlying voting rule is k-Approval or the number of candidates to be elected is bounded by a constant (for both types of tie-breaking rules), as well as if the manipulator's utility function only takes values in 0, 1 and the ties are broken in the manipulator's favor. Voting is a simple mechanism to aggregate the preferences of agents. Many voting rules have been shown to be NP-hard to manipulate. However, a number of recent theoretical results suggest that this complexity may only be in the worst-case since manipulation is often easy in practice. In this paper, we show that empirical studies are useful in improving our understanding of this issue. We demonstrate that there is a smooth transition in the probability that a coalition can elect a desired candidate using the veto rule as the size of the manipulating coalition increases. We show that a rescaled probability curve displays a simple and universal form independent of the size of the problem. We argue that manipulation of the veto rule is asymptotically easy for many independent and identically distributed votes even when the coalition of manipulators is critical in size. Based on this argument, we identify a situation in which manipulation is computationally hard. This is when votes are highly correlated and the election is "hung". We show, however, that even a single uncorrelated voter is enough to make manipulation easy again. We consider the problem of manipulation of elections using positional voting rules under impartial culture voter behaviour. We consider both the logical possibility of coalitional manipulation, and the number of voters who must be recruited to form a manipulating coalition. It is shown that the manipulation problem may be well approximated by a very simple linear program in two variables. This permits a comparative analysis of the asymptotic (large-population) manipulability of the various rules. It is seen that the manipulation resistance of positional rules with 5 or 6 (or more) candidates is quite different from the more commonly analyzed three- and four-candidate cases. 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. 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. We study the computational complexity of the counting version of the POSSIBLE-WINNER problem for elections. In the POSSIBLE-WINNER problem we are given a profile of voters, each with a partial preference order, and ask if there are linear extensions of the votes such that a designated candidate wins. We also analyze a special case of POSSIBLE-WINNER, the MANIPULATION problem. We provide polynomial-time algorithms for counting manipulations in a class of scoring protocols and in several other voting rules. We show #P-hardness of the counting variant of POSSIBLE-WINNER for plurality and veto and give a simple yet general and practically useful randomized algorithm for a variant of POSSIBLE-WINNER for all voting rules for which a winner can be computed in polynomial time. We consider approval voting elections in which each voter votes for a (possibly empty) set of candidates and the outcome consists of a set of k candidates for some parameter k, e.g., committee elections. We are interested in the min-imax approval voting rule in which the outcome represents a compromise among the voters, in the sense that the maximum distance between the preference of any voter and the outcome is as small as possible. This voting rule has two main drawbacks. First, computing an outcome that minimizes the maximum distance is computationally hard. Furthermore, any algorithm that always returns such an outcome provides incentives to voters to misreport their true preferences. In order to circumvent these drawbacks, we consider approximation algorithms, i.e., algorithms that produce an outcome that approximates the minimax distance for any given instance. Such algorithms can be considered as alternative voting rules. We present a polynomial-time 2-approximation algorithm that uses a natural linear programming relaxation for the underlying optimization problem and deterministically rounds the fractional solution in order to compute the outcome; this result improves upon the previously best known algorithm that has an approximation ratio of 3. We are furthermore interested in approximation algorithms that are resistant to manipulation by (coalitions of) voters, i.e., algorithms that do not motivate voters to misreport their true preferences in order to improve their distance from the outcome. We complement previous results in the literature with new upper and lower bounds on strategyproof and group-strategyproof algorithms. The margin of victory of an election, defined as the smallest number k such that k voters can change the winner by voting differently, is an important measurement for robustness of the election outcome. It also plays an important role in implementing efficient post-election audits, which has been widely used in the United States to detect errors or fraud caused by malfunctions of electronic voting machines. In this paper, we investigate the computational complexity and (in)approximability of computing the margin of victory for various voting rules, including approval voting, all positional scoring rules (which include Borda, plurality, and veto), plurality with runoff, Bucklin, Copeland, maximin, STV, and ranked pairs. We also prove a dichotomy theorem, which states that for all continuous generalized scoring rules, including all voting rules studied in this paper, either with high probability the margin of victory is Θ(√n), or with high probability the margin of victory is Θ(n), where n is the number of voters. Most of our results are quite positive, suggesting that the margin of victory can be efficiently computed. This sheds some light on designing efficient post-election audits for voting rules beyond the plurality rule. We study multiple referenda and committee elections, when the ballot of each voter is simply a set of approved binary issues (or candidates). Two well-known rules under this model are the commonly used candidate-wise majority, also called the minisum rule, as well as the minimax rule. In the former, the elected committee consists of the candidates approved by a majority of voters, whereas the latter picks a committee minimizing the maximum Hamming distance to all ballots. As these rules are in some ways extreme points in the whole spectrum of solutions, we consider a general family of rules, using the Ordered Weighted Averaging (OWA) operators. Each rule is parameterized by a weight vector, showing the importance of the i-th highest Hamming distance of the outcome to the voters. The objective then is to minimize the weighted sum of the (ordered) distances. We study mostly computational, but also manipulability properties for this family. We first exhibit that for many rules, it is NP-hard to find a winning committee. We then proceed to identify cases where the problem is either efficiently solvable, or approximable with a small approximation factor. Finally, we investigate the issue of manipulating such rules and provide conditions that make this possible. We introduce a class of voting rules called generalized scoring rules. Under such a rule, each vote generates a vector of k scores, and the outcome of the voting rule is based only on the sum of these vectors---more specifically, only on the order (in terms of score) of the sum's components. This class is extremely general: we do not know of any commonly studied rule that is not a generalized scoring rule. We then study the coalitional manipulation problem for generalized scoring rules. We prove that under certain natural assumptions, if the number of manipulators is O(np) (for any p 1 2) and o(n), then the probability that a random profile is manipulable (to any possible winner under the voting rule) is 1--O(e--Ω(n2p--1)). We also show that common voting rules satisfy these conditions (for the uniform distribution). These results generalize earlier results by Procaccia and Rosenschein as well as even earlier results on the probability of an election being tied. We consider the problem of manipulating elections by cloning candidates. In our model, a manipulator can replace each candidate c by several clones, i.e., new candidates that are so similar to c that each voter simply replaces c in his vote with a block of these new candidates, ranked consecutively. The outcome of the resulting election may then depend on the number of clones as well as on how each voter orders the clones within the block. We formalize what it means for a cloning manipulation to be successful (which turns out to be a surprisingly delicate issue), and, for a number of common voting rules, characterize the preference profiles for which a successful cloning manipulation exists. We also consider the model where there is a cost associated with producing each clone, and study the complexity of finding a minimum-cost cloning manipulation. Finally, we compare cloning with two related problems: the problem of control by adding candidates and the problem of possible (co)winners when new alternatives can join. The Single Transferable Vote (STV) is an attractive way of achieving representation that is proportional in terms of whatever characteristics of candidates voters value. Increasingly sophisticated methods of implementing STV have been advanced to overcome identified limitations of earlier methods. But every refinement comes at a cost of increased difficulty of understanding the vote-counting algorithm and increased cost of undertaking the count. This paper uses votes from actual elections to provide evidence about the frequency with which the choice of a particular STV method affects the outcome, and about the type of difference that different methods make. The most sophisticated STV method is CPO-STV, the comparison of pairs of outcomes by STV. This method avoids sequential exclusions and therefore overcomes the limitations of previous methods, that a paucity of votes in the early stages of a count can lead to the exclusion of a candidate who is the consensus choice of voters whose preferred candidates will be excluded at later stages of the count. 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. We study the sensitivity of election outcomes to small changes in voters' preferences. We assume that a voter may err by swapping two adjacent candidates in his vote; we would like to check whether the election outcome would remain the same given up to delta errors. We show that this problem can be viewed as the destructive version of the unit-cost swap bribery problem, and demonstrate that it is polynomial-time solvable for all scoring rules as well as for the Condorcet rule. We are also interested in identifying elections that are maximally robust with respect to a given voting rule. We define the robustness radius of an election with respect to a given voting rule as the maximum number of errors that can be made without changing the election outcome; the robustness of a voting rule is defined as the robustness radius of the election that is maximally robust with respect to this rule. We derive bounds on the robustness of various voting rules, including Plurality, Borda, and Condorcet. We investigate the extent to which it is possible to compute the probability of a particular candidate winning an election, given imperfect information about the preferences of the electorate. We assume that for each voter, we have a probability distribution over a set of preference orderings. Thus, for each voter, we have a number of possible preference orderings - we do not know which of these orderings actually represents the preferences of the voter, but for each ordering, we know the probability that it does. For the case where the number of candidates is a constant, we are able to give a polynomial time algorithm to compute the probability that a given candidate will win. We present experimental results obtained with an implementation of the algorithm, illustrating how the [email protected]?s performance in practice is better than its predicted theoretical bound. However, when the number of candidates is not bounded, we prove that the problem becomes #P-hard for the Plurality, k-approval, Borda, Copeland, and Bucklin voting rules. We further show that even evaluating if a candidate has any chance of winning is NP-complete for the Plurality voting rule in the case where voters may have different weights. With unweighted voters, we give a polynomial algorithm for Plurality, and show that the problem is hard for many other voting rules. Finally, we give a Monte Carlo approximation algorithm for computing the probability of a candidate winning in any settings, with an error that is as small as desired. Recent results have established that a variety of voting rules are computationally hard to manipulate in the worst-case; this arguably provides some guarantee of resistance to manipulation when the voters have bounded computational power. Nevertheless, it has become apparent that a truly dependable obstacle to manipulation can only be provided by voting rules that are average-case hard to manipulate. In this paper, we analytically demonstrate that, with respect to a wide range of distributions over votes, the coalitional manipulation problem can be decided with overwhelming probability of success by simply considering the ratio between the number of truthful and untruthful voters. Our results can be employed to significantly focus the search for that elusive average-case-hard-to-manipulate voting rule, but at the same time these results also strengthen the case against the existence of such a rule.