Committees are an important scenario for reaching consensus. Beyond standard consensus-seeking issues, committee decisions are complicated by a deadline, e.g., the next start date for a budget, or the start of a semester. In committee hiring decisions, it may be that if no candidate is supported by a strong majority, the default is to hire no one---an option that may cost committee members dearly. As a result, committee members might prefer to agree on a reasonable, if not necessarily the best, candidate, to avoid unfilled positions. In this paper we propose a model for the above scenario------based on a time-bounded iterative voting process. We explore theoretical features of CUDs, particularly focusing on convergence guarantees and quality of the final decision. An extensive experimental study demonstrates more subtle features of CUDs, e.g., the difference between two simple types of committee member behavior, lazy vs. proactive voters. Finally, a user study examines the differences between the behavior of rational voting bots and real voters, concluding that it may often be best to have bots play on the voters' behalf.
 We cast the various different models used for the analysis of iterative voting schemes into a general framework, consistent with the literature on acyclicity in games. More specifically, we classify convergence results based on the underlying assumptions on the agent scheduler (the order of players) and the action scheduler (the response played by the agent).  We study convergence properties of iterative voting procedures. Such procedures are defined by a voting rule and a (restricted) iterative process, where at each step one agent can modify his vote towards a better outcome for himself. It is already known that if the iteration dynamics (the manner in which voters are allowed to modify their votes) are unrestricted, then the voting process may not converge. For most common voting rules this may be observed even under the best response dynamics limitation. It is therefore important to investigate whether and which natural restrictions on the dynamics of iterative voting procedures can guarantee convergence. To this end, we provide two general conditions on the dynamics based on iterative myopic improvements, each of which is sufficient for convergence. We then identify several classes of voting rules (including Positional Scoring Rules, Maximin, Copeland and Bucklin), along with their corresponding iterative processes, for which at least one of these conditions hold. We develop a formal model of opinion polls in elections and study how they influence the voting behaviour of the participating agents, and thereby election outcomes. This approach is particularly relevant to the study of collective decision making by means of voting in multiagent systems, where it is reasonable to assume that we can precisely model the amount of information available to agents and where agents can be expected to follow relatively simple rules when adjusting their behaviour in response to polls. We analyse two settings, one where a single agent strategises in view of a single poll, and one where multiple agents repeatedly update their voting intentions in view of a sequence of polls. In the single-poll setting we vary the amount of information a poll provides and examine, for different voting rules, when an agent starts and stops having an incentive to manipulate the election. In the repeated-poll setting, using both analytical and experimental methods, we study how the properties of different voting rules are affected under different sets of assumptions on how agents will respond to poll information. Together, our results clarify under which circumstances sharing information via opinion polls can improve the quality of election outcomes and under which circumstances it may have negative effects, due to the increased opportunities for manipulation it provides. We suggest a new model for strategic voting based on local dominance, where voters consider a set of possible outcomes without assigning probabilities to them. We prove that voting equilibria under the Plurality rule exist for a broad class of local dominance relations. Furthermore, we show that local dominance-based dynamics quickly converge to an equilibrium if voters start from the truthful state, and we provide weaker convergence guarantees in more general settings. Using extensive simulations of strategic voting on generated and real profiles, we show that emerging equilibria replicate widely known patterns of human voting behavior such as Duverger's law, and that they generally improve the quality of the winner compared to non-strategic voting. Understanding the nature of strategic voting is the holy grail of social choice theory, where game-theory, social science and recently computational approaches are all applied in order to model the incentives and behavior of voters. In a recent paper, (2014) made another step in this direction, by suggesting a behavioral game-theoretic model for voters under uncertainty. For a specific variation of best-response heuristics, they proved initial existence and convergence results in the Plurality voting system. This paper extends the model in multiple directions, considering voters with different uncertainty levels, simultaneous strategic decisions, and a more permissive notion of best-response. It is proved that a voting equilibrium exists even in the most general case. Further, any society voting in an iterative setting is guaranteed to converge to an equilibrium. An alternative behavior is analyzed, where voters try to minimize their worst-case regret. As it turns out, the two behaviors coincide in the simple setting of (2014), but not in the general case.  We present a systematic study of Plurality elections with strategic voters who, in addition to having preferences over election winners, also have secondary preferences, governing their behavior when their vote cannot affect the election outcome. Specifically, we study two models that have been recently considered in the literature: lazy voters, who prefer to abstain when they are not pivotal, and truth-biased voters, who prefer to vote truthfully when they are not pivotal. For both lazy and truth-biased voters, we are interested in their behavior under different tie-breaking rules (lexicographic rule, random voter rule, random candidate rule). Two of these six combinations of secondary preferences and tie-breaking rules have been studied in prior work; for the remaining four, we characterize pure Nash equilibria (PNE) of the resulting strategic games and study the complexity of related computational problems. We then use these results to analyze the impact of different secondary preferences and tie-breaking rules on the election outcomes. Our results extend to settings where some of the voters are non-strategic.