We study the problem of coalitional manipulation---where @math manipulators try to manipulate an election on @math candidates---under general scoring rules, with a focus on the Borda protocol. We do so both in the weighted and unweighted settings. We focus on minimizing the maximum score obtainable by a non-preferred candidate. In the strongest, most general setting, we provide an algorithm for any scoring rule as described by a vector @math : for some @math , it obtains an additive approximation equal to @math , where @math is the sum of voter weights. For Borda, both the weighted and unweighted variants are known to be @math -hard. For the unweighted case, our simpler algorithm provides a randomized, additive @math approximation; in other words, if there exists a strategy enabling the preferred candidate to win by an @math margin, our method, with high probability, will find a strategy enabling her to win (albeit with a possibly smaller margin). It thus provides a somewhat stronger guarantee compared to the previous methods, which implicitly implied a strategy that provides an @math -additive approximation to the maximum score of a non-preferred candidate. For the weighted case, our generalized algorithm provides an @math -additive approximation, where @math is the sum of voter weights. This is a clear advantage over previous methods: some of them do not generalize to the weighted case, while others---which approximate the number of manipulators---pose restrictions on the weights of extra manipulators added. Our methods are based on carefully rounding an exponentially-large configuration linear program that is solved by using the ellipsoid method with an efficient separation oracle.
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. Encouraging voters to truthfully reveal their preferences in an election has long been an important issue. Recently, computational complexity has been suggested as a means of precluding strategic behavior. Previous studies have shown that some voting protocols are hard to manipulate, but used NP-hardness as the complexity measure. Such a worst-case analysis may be an insufficient guarantee of resistance to manipulation. Indeed, we demonstrate that NP-hard manipulations may be tractable in the average-case. For this purpose, we augment the existing theory of average-case complexity with some new concepts. In particular, we consider elections distributed with respect to junta distributions, which concentrate on hard instances. We use our techniques to prove that scoring protocols are susceptible to manipulation by coalitions, when the number of candidates is constant.  Scoring protocols are a broad class of voting systems. Each is defined by a vector (@a"1,@a"2,...,@a"m), @a"1>[email protected]"2>=...>[email protected]"m, of integers such that each voter contributes @a"1 points to his her first choice, @a"2 points to his her second choice, and so on, and any candidate receiving the most points is a winner. What is it about scoring-protocol election systems that makes some have the desirable property of being NP-complete to manipulate, while others can be manipulated in polynomial time? We find the complete, dichotomizing answer: Diversity of dislike. Every scoring-protocol election system having two or more point values assigned to candidates other than the favorite-i.e., having @? @a"i|2==2-is NP-complete to manipulate. Every other scoring-protocol election system can be manipulated in polynomial time. In effect, we show that-other than trivial systems (where all candidates alway tie), plurality voting, and plurality voting's transparently disguised translations-every scoring-protocol election system is NP-complete to manipulate. The Borda voting rule is a positional scoring rule where, for m candidates, for every vote the first candidate receives m- 1 points, the second m- 2 points and so on. A Borda winner is a candidate with highest total score. It has been a prominent open problem to determine the computational complexity of UNWEIGHTED COALITIONAL MANIPULATION UNDER BORDA: Can one add a certain number of additional votes (called manipulators) to an election such that a distinguished candidate becomes a winner? We settle this open problem by showing NP-hardness even for two manipulators and three input votes. Moreover, we discuss extensions and limitations of this hardness result.