Monotonicity criterion

Last updated
A 4-candidate Yee diagram under IRV. The diagram shows who would win an IRV election if the electorate is centered at a particular point. Moving the electorate to the left can cause a right-wing candidate to win, and vice versa. Black lines show the optimal solution (achieved by Condorcet or score voting). IRV Yee.svg
A 4-candidate Yee diagram under IRV. The diagram shows who would win an IRV election if the electorate is centered at a particular point. Moving the electorate to the left can cause a right-wing candidate to win, and vice versa. Black lines show the optimal solution (achieved by Condorcet or score voting).

The monotonicity criterion, also called positive response [1] or positive vote weight, [2] is a principle of social choice theory that says that increasing a candidate's ranking or rating should not cause them to lose. [3] Positive response rules out cases where a candidate loses an election as a result of receiving too much support from voters (i.e. being "too popular to win").

Contents

Systems that violate positive response (such as instant-runoff) can create situations where a ballot has the opposite effect of what the voter intended. This runs counter to the intuition that increasing an option's popularity in a democratic election should only improve the chances of that option winning. As a result, German courts have previously struck down nonmonotonic systems for violating the right to equal and direct suffrage. [4] [5]

Most voting systems (including Borda and all common tournament solutions) satisfy monotonicity, [3] as do all commonly-used rated voting methods (including approval and score). [note 1]

However, the criterion is violated by instant-runoff voting, [6] the single transferable vote, and Hamilton's apportionment method. [2]

The participation criterion is a closely-related, but different, concept. While positive responsiveness deals with a voter changing their opinion (or vote), participation deals with situations where a voter choosing to cast a ballot can have a reversed effect on the election.

By method

Runoff voting

Runoff voting systems (including instant-runoff voting, two-round runoff, and nonpartisan blanket primaries) fail the monotonicity criterion. A notable example is the 2009 Burlington mayoral election, the United States' second instant-runoff election in the modern era, where Bob Kiss won the election as a result of 750 ballots ranking him in last place. [7]

An example with three parties (Top, Center, Bottom) is shown below. In this scenario, the Bottom party is defeated after a successful campaign and popular platform earns them more supporters from the Top party (shifting voters in their direction). As a result, instant-runoff voting can sometimes reward candidates for being extreme, incompetent, or unpopular.

Popular BottomUnpopular Bottom
Round 1Round 2Round 1Round 2
Top25%X mark.svg+6%Top31%46%
Center30%55%Yes check.svgCenter30% X mark.svg
Bottom45%45%-6%Bottom39%54% Yes check.svg

Quota rules

Proportional representation systems using largest remainders for apportionment do not pass the monotonicity criterion. This happened in the 2005 German federal election, when CDU voters in Dresden were instructed to vote for the FDP, a strategy that allowed the party an additional seat. [4] As a result, the Federal Constitutional Court ruled that negative voting weights violate the German constitution's guarantee of equal and direct suffrage. [5]

Frequency of violations

For electoral methods failing positive value, the frequency of monotonicity violations will depend on the electoral method, the candidates, and the distribution of outcomes.

Negative voting events tend to be most common with instant-runoff voting, leading some researchers who study the issue to argue that in particular exhibits monotonicity violations (and similar pathologies) with an "unnaceptably high" frequency. [8]

Theoretical models

Results using the impartial culture model estimate about 15% of elections with 3 candidates; [9] [10] however, the true probability may be much higher, especially when restricting observation to close elections. [11] For moderate numbers of candidates, the probability of a monotonicity failure quickly approaches 100%.[ citation needed ]

A 2013 study using a 2D spatial model with various voter distributions estimated that at least 15% of IRV elections are nonmonotonic in the best-case scenario (when only 3 candidates run), with substantially larger values for more than 3 candidates. The authors concluded that "three-way competitive races will exhibit unacceptably frequent monotonicity failures" and "In light of these results, those seeking to implement a fairer multi-candidate election system should be wary of adopting IRV." [8]

Real-world situations

Alaska 2022

Alaska's first-ever instant-runoff election resulted in negative vote weights for many Republican supporters of Sarah Palin, who could have defeated Mary Peltola by placing her first on their ballots. [12]

Burlington, Vermont

In Burlington's second IRV election, incumbent Bob Kiss was re-elected, despite losing in a head-to-head matchup with Democrat Andy Montroll (the Condorcet winner). However, if Kiss had gained more support from Wright voters, Kiss would have lost. [7]

Survey of nonmonotonic elections

A survey of 185 American instant-runoff voting elections where no candidate was ranked first by a majority of voters found five examples of elections containing a monotonicity failure. [7]

2005 German Election in Dresden

A negative voting weight event famously resulted in the abolition of Hamilton's method for apportionment in Germany after the 2005 federal election. CDU voters in Dresden were instructed to strategically vote for the FDP, a strategy that allowed the party to earn an additional seat, causing substantial controversy. As a result, the Federal Constitutional Court ruled that negative voting weights violate the German constitution's guarantee of equal and direct suffrage. [2]

See also

Notes

  1. Apart from majority judgment, these systems satisfy an even stronger form of positive responsiveness: if there is a tie, any increase in a candidate's rating will break the tie in that candidate's favor.

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Two-round system</span> Voting system

The two-round system (TRS), also known as runoff voting, second ballot, or ballotage, is a voting method used to elect a single candidate, where voters cast a single vote for their preferred candidate. It generally ensures a majoritarian result, not a simple-plurality result as under first past the post. Under the two-round election system, the election process usually proceeds to a second round only if in the first round no candidate received an absolute majority of votes cast, or some other lower prescribed percentage. Under the two-round system, usually only the two candidates who received the most votes in the first round, or only those candidates who received above a prescribed proportion of the votes, are candidates in the second round. Other candidates are excluded from the second round.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Condorcet method</span> Pairwise-comparison electoral system

A Condorcet method is an election method that elects the candidate who wins a majority of the vote in every head-to-head election against each of the other candidates, whenever there is such a candidate. A candidate with this property, the pairwise champion or beats-all winner, is formally called the Condorcet winner. The head-to-head elections need not be done separately; a voter's choice within any given pair can be determined from the ranking.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Copeland's method</span> Single-winner ranked vote system

Copeland's method, also called Llull's method or round-robin voting, is a ranked-choice voting system based on scoring pairwise wins and losses.

The participation criterion, also called vote or population monotonicity, is a voting system criterion that says that a candidate should never lose an election because they have "too much support." It says that adding voters who support A over B should not cause A to lose the election to B.

The Borda count electoral system can be combined with an instant-runoff procedure to create hybrid election methods that are called Nanson method and Baldwin method. Both methods are designed to satisfy the Condorcet criterion, and allow for incomplete ballots and equal rankings.

Reversal symmetry is a voting system criterion which requires that if candidate A is the unique winner, and each voter's individual preferences are inverted, then A must not be elected. Methods that satisfy reversal symmetry include Borda count, ranked pairs, Kemeny–Young method, and Schulze method. Methods that fail include Bucklin voting, instant-runoff voting and Condorcet methods that fail the Condorcet loser criterion such as Minimax.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Contingent vote</span> Single-winner ranked-choice electoral system

The contingent vote is an electoral system used to elect a single representative in which a candidate requires a majority of votes to win. It is a form of preferential voting. The voter ranks the candidates in order of preference, and when the votes are counted, the first preference votes only are counted. If no candidate has a majority of the votes cast, then all but the two leading candidates are eliminated and the votes received by the eliminated candidates are distributed among the two remaining candidates according to voters' preferences. This ensures that one candidate achieves a majority and is declared elected.

The later-no-harm property is a property of some voting systems first described by Douglas Woodall. Intuitively, a voting system satisfies this property, increasing the rating of a later candidate should not hurt a candidate placed earlier on the ballot. For example, suppose that a voter has ranked the candidate Alice 1st and another candidate Bob 3rd. Then, later-no-harm says that if this voter increases Bob's rating from 3rd-place to 2nd, this will not allow Bob to defeat Alice.

In voting systems theory, the independence of clones criterion measures an election method's robustness to strategic nomination. Nicolaus Tideman was the first to formulate this criterion, which states that the winner must not change due to the addition of a non-winning candidate who is similar to a candidate already present. It is a relative criterion: it states how changing an election should or shouldn't affect the outcome.

Schulze STV is a draft single transferable vote (STV) ranked voting system designed to achieve proportional representation. It was invented by Markus Schulze, who developed the Schulze method for resolving ties using a Condorcet method. Schulze STV is similar to CPO-STV in that it compares possible winning candidate pairs and selects the Condorcet winner. It is not used in parliamentary elections.

Instant-runoff voting (IRV), also known as plurality with elimination or plurality loser, is a ranked-choice voting system that modifies plurality by repeatedly eliminating the last-place winner until only one candidate is left. In the United Kingdom, it is generally called the alternative vote (AV). In the United States, IRV is often referred to as ranked-choice voting (RCV), by way of conflation with ranked voting systems in general.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">2009 Burlington mayoral election</span> Election in Vermont

The 2009 Burlington mayoral election was held in March 2009 for the city of Burlington, Vermont. This was the second mayoral election since the city's 2005 change to instant-runoff voting (IRV), after the 2006 mayoral election. In the 2009 election, incumbent Burlington mayor won reelection as a member of the Vermont Progressive Party, defeating Kurt Wright in the final round with 48% of the vote.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Electoral system</span> Method by which voters make a choice between options

An electoral system or voting system is a set of rules that determine how elections and referendums are conducted and how their results are determined. Electoral systems are used in politics to elect governments, while non-political elections may take place in business, non-profit organisations and informal organisations. These rules govern all aspects of the voting process: when elections occur, who is allowed to vote, who can stand as a candidate, how ballots are marked and cast, how the ballots are counted, how votes translate into the election outcome, limits on campaign spending, and other factors that can affect the result. Political electoral systems are defined by constitutions and electoral laws, are typically conducted by election commissions, and can use multiple types of elections for different offices.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Ranked voting</span> Family of electoral systems

The term ranked voting, also known as preferential voting or ranked-choice voting, pertains to any voting system where voters indicate a rank to order candidates or options—in a sequence from first, second, third, and onwards—on their ballots. Ranked voting systems vary based on the ballot marking process, how preferences are tabulated and counted, the number of seats available for election, and whether voters are allowed to rank candidates equally.

The later-no-help criterion is a voting system criterion formulated by Douglas Woodall. The criterion is satisfied if, in any election, a voter giving an additional ranking or positive rating to a less-preferred candidate can not cause a more-preferred candidate to win. Voting systems that fail the later-no-help criterion are vulnerable to the tactical voting strategy called mischief voting, which can deny victory to a sincere Condorcet winner.


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.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">STAR voting</span> Single-winner electoral system

STAR voting is an electoral system for single-seat elections. The name stands for "Score then Automatic Runoff", referring to the fact that this system is a combination of score voting, to pick two finalists with the highest total scores, followed by an "automatic runoff" in which the finalist who is preferred on more ballots wins. It is a type of cardinal voting electoral system.

The no favorite betrayal criterion describes whether a voting system avoids situations in which individuals insincerely rank their candidates to obtain their preferred outcome, rather than supporting their favorite candidate. Many rated and Condorcet voting methods satisfy the criterion, including score voting, whereas instant-runoff voting, two-round systems, and plurality voting do not. If the criterion is satisfied, voters can instead insincerely rank other candidates as equal to their favorite choice.

House monotonicity is a property of apportionment methods. These are methods for allocating seats in a parliament among federal states. The property says that, if the number of seats in the "house" increases, and the method is re-activated, then no state should have fewer seats than it previously had. A method that fails to satisfy house-monotonicity is said to have the Alabama paradox.

Descending Solid Coalitions (DSC) is a ranked-choice voting system. It is designed to preserve the advantages of instant-runoff voting, while satisfying monotonicity. It was developed by voting theorist Douglas Woodall as an improvement on (and replacement for) the use of the alternative vote.

References

  1. May, Kenneth O. (1952). "A Set of Independent Necessary and Sufficient Conditions for Simple Majority Decision". Econometrica. 20 (4): 680–684. doi:10.2307/1907651. ISSN   0012-9682. JSTOR   1907651.
  2. 1 2 3 Pukelsheim, Friedrich (2014). Proportional representation : apportionment methods and their applications. Internet Archive. Cham ; New York : Springer. ISBN   978-3-319-03855-1.
  3. 1 2 D R Woodall, "Monotonicity and Single-Seat Election Rules", Voting matters , Issue 6, 1996
  4. 1 2 Pukelsheim, Friedrich (2014). Proportional representation : apportionment methods and their applications. Internet Archive. Cham ; New York : Springer. ISBN   978-3-319-03855-1.
  5. 1 2 dpa (2013-02-22). "Bundestag beschließt neues Wahlrecht". Die Zeit (in German). ISSN   0044-2070 . Retrieved 2024-05-02.
  6. Ornstein, Joseph T.; Norman, Robert Z. (2014-10-01). "Frequency of monotonicity failure under Instant Runoff Voting: estimates based on a spatial model of elections". Public Choice. 161 (1–2): 1–9. doi:10.1007/s11127-013-0118-2. ISSN   0048-5829. S2CID   30833409.
  7. 1 2 3 Graham-Squire, Adam T.; McCune, David (2023-06-12). "An Examination of Ranked-Choice Voting in the United States, 2004–2022". Representation: 1–19. arXiv: 2301.12075 . doi:10.1080/00344893.2023.2221689.
  8. 1 2 Ornstein, Joseph T.; Norman, Robert Z. (2014-10-01). "Frequency of monotonicity failure under Instant Runoff Voting: estimates based on a spatial model of elections". Public Choice. 161 (1–2): 1–9. doi:10.1007/s11127-013-0118-2. ISSN   0048-5829. S2CID   30833409.
  9. Miller, Nicholas R. (2016). "Monotonicity Failure in IRV Elections with Three Candidates: Closeness Matters" (PDF). University of Maryland Baltimore County (2nd ed.). Table 2. Retrieved 2020-07-26. Impartial Culture Profiles: All, TMF: 15.1%
  10. Miller, Nicholas R. (2012). MONOTONICITY FAILURE IN IRV ELECTIONS WITH THREE ANDIDATES (PowerPoint). p. 23. Impartial Culture Profiles: All, Total MF: 15.0%
  11. Quas, Anthony (2004-03-01). "Anomalous Outcomes in Preferential Voting". Stochastics and Dynamics. 04 (1): 95–105. doi:10.1142/S0219493704000912. ISSN   0219-4937.
  12. Graham-Squire, Adam; McCune, David (2024-01-02). "Ranked Choice Wackiness in Alaska". Math Horizons. 31 (1): 24–27. doi:10.1080/10724117.2023.2224675. ISSN   1072-4117.