Average voting rule

Last updated

The average voting rule is a rule for group decision-making when the decision is a distribution (e.g. the allocation of a budget among different issues), and each of the voters reports his ideal distribution. This is a special case of budget-proposal aggregation. It is a simple aggregation rule, that returns the arithmetic mean of all individual ideal distributions. The average rule was first studied formally by Michael Intrilligator. [1] This rule and its variants are commonly used in economics and sports. [2] [3]

Contents

Characterization

Intrilligator proved [1] that the average rule is the unique rule that satisfies the following three axioms:

Manipulation

An important disadvantage of the average rule is that it is not strategyproof – it is easy to manipulate. [4] For example, suppose there are two issues, the ideal distribution of Alice is (80%, 20%), and the average of the ideal distributions of the other voters is (60%, 40%). Then Alice would be better off if she reports that her ideal distribution is (100%, 0%), since this will pull the average distribution closer to her ideal distribution.

If all voters try to manipulate simultaneously, the computed average may be substantially different than the "real" average: in a two-issue setting with true average close to (50%, 50%), the computed average may vary by up to 20 percentage points when there are many voters, and the effect can be more extreme when the true average is more lopsided. [4]

Variants

The weighted average rule gives different weights to different voters (for example, based on their level of expertise).

The trimmed average rule discards some of the extreme bids, and returns the average of the remaining bids.

Renault and Trannoy study the combined use of the average rule and the majority rule, and their effect on minority protection. [3]

Other rules

Rosar [2] compares the average voting rule to the median voting rule, when the voters have diverse private information and interdependent preferences. For uniformly distributed information, the average report dominates the median report from a utilitarian perspective, when the set of admissible reports is designed optimally. For general distributions, the results still hold when there are many agents.

See also

Related Research Articles

Arrow's impossibility theorem is a key impossibility theorem in social choice theory, showing that no ranked voting rule can produce a logically coherent ranking of more than two candidates. Specifically, no such rule can satisfy a key criterion of rational choice called independence of irrelevant alternatives: that a choice between and should not depend on the quality of a third, unrelated outcome .

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Participatory budgeting</span>

Participatory budgeting (PB) is a type of citizen sourcing in which ordinary people decide how to allocate part of a municipal or public budget through a process of democratic deliberation and decision-making. Participatory budgeting allows citizens or residents of a locality to identify, discuss, and prioritize public spending projects, and gives them the power to make real decisions about how money is spent.

In political science and social choice theory, the median voter theorem states that if voters and candidates are distributed along a one-dimensional spectrum and voters have single peaked preferences, any voting method satisfying the Condorcet criterion will elect the candidate preferred by the median voter.

A Lindahl tax is a form of taxation conceived by Erik Lindahl in which individuals pay for public goods according to their marginal benefits. In other words, they pay according to the amount of satisfaction or utility they derive from the consumption of an additional unit of the public good. Lindahl taxation is designed to maximize efficiency for each individual and provide the optimal level of a public good.

In social choice theory, a dictatorship mechanism is a rule by which, among all possible alternatives, the results of voting mirror a single pre-determined person's preferences, without consideration of the other voters. Dictatorship by itself is not considered a good mechanism in practice, but it is theoretically important: by Arrow's impossibility theorem, when there are at least three alternatives, dictatorship is the only ranked voting electoral system that satisfies unrestricted domain, Pareto efficiency, and independence of irrelevant alternatives. Similarly, by Gibbard's theorem, when there are at least three alternatives, dictatorship is the only strategyproof rule.

Majority judgment (MJ) is a single-winner voting system proposed in 2010 by Michel Balinski and Rida Laraki. It is a kind of highest median rule, a cardinal voting system that elects the candidate with the highest median rating.

A simultaneous eating algorithm(SE) is an algorithm for allocating divisible objects among agents with ordinal preferences. "Ordinal preferences" means that each agent can rank the items from best to worst, but cannot (or does not want to) specify a numeric value for each item. The SE allocation satisfies SD-efficiency - a weak ordinal variant of Pareto-efficiency (it means that the allocation is Pareto-efficient for at least one vector of additive utility functions consistent with the agents' item rankings).


A major branch of social choice theory is devoted to the comparison of electoral systems, otherwise known as social choice functions. Viewed from the perspective of political science, electoral systems are rules for conducting elections and determining winners from the ballots cast. From the perspective of economics, mathematics, and philosophy, a social choice function is a mathematical function that determines how a society should make choices, given a collection of individual preferences.

Combinatorial participatory budgeting,also called indivisible participatory budgeting or budgeted social choice, is a problem in social choice. There are several candidate projects, each of which has a fixed costs. There is a fixed budget, that cannot cover all these projects. Each voter has different preferences regarding these projects. The goal is to find a budget-allocation - a subset of the projects, with total cost at most the budget, that will be funded. Combinatorial participatory budgeting is the most common form of participatory budgeting.

A jury theorem is a mathematical theorem proving that, under certain assumptions, a decision attained using majority voting in a large group is more likely to be correct than a decision attained by a single expert. It serves as a formal argument for the idea of wisdom of the crowd, for decision of questions of fact by jury trial, and for democracy in general.

Justified representation (JR) is a criterion of fairness in multiwinner approval voting. It can be seen as an adaptation of the proportional representation criterion to approval voting.

Fractional social choice is a branch of social choice theory in which the collective decision is not a single alternative, but rather a weighted sum of two or more alternatives. For example, if society has to choose between three candidates: A B or C, then in standard social choice, exactly one of these candidates is chosen, while in fractional social choice, it is possible to choose "2/3 of A and 1/3 of B". A common interpretation of the weighted sum is as a lottery, in which candidate A is chosen with probability 2/3 and candidate B is chosen with probability 1/3. Due to this interpretation, fractional social choice is also called random social choice, probabilistic social choice, or stochastic social choice. But it can also be interpreted as a recipe for sharing, for example:

Fractional approval voting is an electoral system using approval ballots, in which the outcome is fractional: for each alternative j there is a fraction pj between 0 and 1, such that the sum of pj is 1. It can be seen as a generalization of approval voting: in the latter, one candidate wins and the other candidates lose. The fractions pj can be interpreted in various ways, depending on the setting. Examples are:

In political science and social choice theory, the spatialmodel of voting is a mathematical model of voting behavior. It describes voters and candidates as varying along one or more axes, where each axis represents an attribute of the candidate that voters care about. Voters are modeled as having an ideal point in this space and voting for the candidates closest to them.

A median mechanism is a voting rule that allows people to decide on a value in a one-dimensional domain. Each person votes by writing down his/her ideal value, and the rule selects a single value which is the median of all votes.

Multi-issue voting is a setting in which several issues have to be decided by voting. Multi-issue voting raises several considerations, that are not relevant in single-issue voting.

Budget-proposal aggregation (BPA) is a problem in social choice theory. A group has to decide on how to distribute its budget among several issues. Each group-member has a different idea about what the ideal budget-distribution should be. The problem is how to aggregate the different opinions into a single budget-distribution program.

Participatory budgeting experiments are experiments done in the laboratory and in computerized simulations, in order to check various ethical and practical aspects of participatory budgeting. These experiments aim to decide on two main issues:

  1. Front-end: which ballot type to use as an input? See Participatory budgeting ballot types for common types of ballots.
  2. Back-end: Which rule to use for aggregating the voters' preferences? See combinatorial participatory budgeting for detailed descriptions of various aggregation rules.

Belief aggregation, also called risk aggregation,opinion aggregation or probabilistic opinion pooling, is a process in which different probability distributions, produced by different experts, are combined to yield a single probability distribution.

The median voting rule is a rule for group decision-making along a one-dimesional spectrum. An example is members of a city-council who have to decide on the total amount of annual city budget. Another example is several people working in the same office who have to decide on the air-conditioning temperature. Each member has in mind an ideal amount, and prefers the actual amount to be as close as possible to his peak.

References

  1. 1 2 Intriligator, M. D. (1973-10-01). "A Probabilistic Model of Social Choice". The Review of Economic Studies. 40 (4): 553–560. doi:10.2307/2296588. ISSN   0034-6527. JSTOR   2296588.
  2. 1 2 Rosar, Frank (2015-09-01). "Continuous decisions by a committee: Median versus average mechanisms". Journal of Economic Theory. 159: 15–65. doi:10.1016/j.jet.2015.05.010. ISSN   0022-0531.
  3. 1 2 Renault, Regis; Trannoy, Alain (May 2005). "Protecting Minorities through the Average Voting Rule". Journal of Public Economic Theory. 7 (2): 169–199. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9779.2005.00200.x. ISSN   1097-3923.
  4. 1 2 Renault, Régis; Trannoy, Alain (2011-12-01). "Assessing the extent of strategic manipulation: the average vote example". SERIEs. 2 (4): 497–513. doi: 10.1007/s13209-011-0077-0 . hdl: 10419/77720 . ISSN   1869-4195.
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.