A joint Politics and Economics series |
Social choice and electoral systems |
---|
![]() |
![]() |
Implicit utilitarian voting is a voting system [ example needed ] in which agents are assumed to have utilities for each alternative, but they express their preferences only by ranking the alternatives (like in ranked voting). The system tries to select an alternative which maximizes the sum of utilities, as in the utilitarian social choice rule, based only on the ranking information provided. [1] Implicit utilitarian voting attempts to approximate score voting or the utilitarian rule, even in situations where cardinal utilities are unavailable.
The main challenge of implicit utilitarian voting is that rankings do not contain enough information to calculate exact utilities, meaning that maximizing social welfare in all cases is impossible. Thus, implicit utilitarian voting aims to find an alternative whose social welfare is approximately optimal.
The quality of approximation for a voting rule is measured by its distortion or regret, which measures the worst-case error (utility loss) caused by using the ranked-voting rule to approximate utility. [1] [2]
Some achievements in the theory of IUV are:
In social choice and operations research, the utilitarian rule is a rule saying that, among all possible alternatives, society should pick the alternative which maximizes the sum of the utilities of all individuals in society. It is a formal mathematical representation of the utilitarian philosophy, and is often justified by reference to Harsanyi's utilitarian theorem or the Von Neumann–Morgenstern theorem.
Fair item allocation is a kind of the fair division problem in which the items to divide are discrete rather than continuous. The items have to be divided among several partners who potentially value them differently, and each item has to be given as a whole to a single person. This situation arises in various real-life scenarios:
Computational social choice is a field at the intersection of social choice theory, theoretical computer science, and the analysis of multi-agent systems. It consists of the analysis of problems arising from the aggregation of preferences of a group of agents from a computational perspective. In particular, computational social choice is concerned with the efficient computation of outcomes of voting rules, with the computational complexity of various forms of manipulation, and issues arising from the problem of representing and eliciting preferences in combinatorial settings.
Envy-free (EF) item allocation is a fair item allocation problem, in which the fairness criterion is envy-freeness - each agent should receive a bundle that they believe to be at least as good as the bundle of any other agent.
In economics, dichotomous preferences (DP) are preference relations that divide the set of alternatives to two subsets, "Good" and "Bad".
Approximate Competitive Equilibrium from Equal Incomes (A-CEEI) is a procedure for fair item assignment. It was developed by Eric Budish.
The Prize in Game Theory and Computer Science in Honour of Ehud Kalai is an award given by the Game Theory Society. The prize is awarded for outstanding articles at the interface of game theory and computer science. Following the eligibility rules of the Gödel Prize, preference is given to authors who are 45 years old or younger at the time of the award. It was established in 2008 by a donation from Yoav Shoham in honor of the Ehud Kalai's contributions in bridging these two fields.
Various experiments have been made to evaluate various procedures for fair division, the problem of dividing resources among several people. These include case studies, computerized simulations, and lab experiments.
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.
When allocating objects among people with different preferences, two major goals are Pareto efficiency and fairness. Since the objects are indivisible, there may not exist any fair allocation. For example, when there is a single house and two people, every allocation of the house will be unfair to one person. Therefore, several common approximations have been studied, such as maximin-share fairness (MMS), envy-freeness up to one item (EF1), proportionality up to one item (PROP1), and equitability up to one item (EQ1). The problem of efficient approximately fair item allocation is to find an allocation that is both Pareto-efficient (PE) and satisfies one of these fairness notions. The problem was first presented at 2016 and has attracted considerable attention since then.
Egalitarian item allocation, also called max-min item allocation is a fair item allocation problem, in which the fairness criterion follows the egalitarian rule. The goal is to maximize the minimum value of an agent. That is, among all possible allocations, the goal is to find an allocation in which the smallest value of an agent is as large as possible. In case there are two or more allocations with the same smallest value, then the goal is to select, from among these allocations, the one in which the second-smallest value is as large as possible, and so on. Therefore, an egalitarian item allocation is sometimes called a leximin item allocation.
In fractional social choice, fractional approval voting refers to a class of electoral systems 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:
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.
Donor coordination is a problem in social choice. There are several donors, each of whom wants to donate some money. Each donor supports a different set of targets. The goal is to distribute the total donated amount among the various targets in a way that respects the donors' preferences.
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:
Participatory budgeting ballot types are the different ballot types in participatory budgeting used for preference elicitation i.e. how each voter should express his or her preferences over the projects and how the budget should be allocated. Different cities use different ballot types, and various experiments have been conducted to assess the advantages and disadvantages of each type.
Fully proportional representation(FPR) is a property of multiwinner voting systems. It extends the property of proportional representation (PR) by requiring that the representation be based on the entire preferences of the voters, rather than on their first choice. Moreover, the requirement combines PR with the requirement of accountability - each voter knows exactly which elected candidate represents him, and each candidate knows exactly which voters he represents.
Dominant resource fairness (DRF) is a rule for fair division. It is particularly useful for dividing computing resources in among users in cloud computing environments, where each user may require a different combination of resources. DRF was presented by Ali Ghodsi, Matei Zaharia, Benjamin Hindman, Andy Konwinski, Scott Shenker and Ion Stoica in 2011.