Sincere favorite criterion

Last updated

The sincere favorite or no favorite-betrayal criterion is a property of some voting systems that says voters should have no incentive to vote for someone else over their favorite. [1] It protects voters from having to engage in lesser-evil voting or a strategy called "decapitation" (removing the "head" off a ballot). [2]

Contents

Most rated voting systems, including score voting, satisfy the criterion. [3] [4] [5] By contrast, most variants of ranked voting fail this criterion. [4] [6] [7] Lesser-evil-voting is particularly prevalent in plurality-based voting systems like ranked choice voting (RCV), [6] [8] [9] traditional runoffs, [4] partisan primaries, and first-past-the-post. [4] Lesser-evil voting is typically associated with center-squeeze in these systems.

Duverger's law says that systems vulnerable to this strategy will typically (though not always) develop two party-systems, as voters will abandon minor-party candidates to support stronger major-party candidates. [10]

US Presidential elections

The "sincere favorite criterion" suggests that a voter should always rank their sincere favorite candidate as their top choice, without strategizing based on the likely outcomes. However, in certain voting systems, this strategy can lead to suboptimal results, which makes the criterion less applicable.

The U.S. presidential election is a prime example where voters might avoid using a sincere favorite criterion. This is due to the Electoral College system, which is structured as a "first-past-the-post" (FPTP) election within each state. Here, if a voter's sincere favorite has no realistic chance of winning, it may be rational for them to vote for a more viable candidate to prevent a less preferred option from winning. This is known as "tactical voting."

Several sources discuss how the FPTP system (like the one used in U.S. presidential elections) can disincentivize the use of sincere voting strategies:

1. Gary Cox's "Making Votes Count: Strategic Coordination in the World’s Electoral Systems" explores strategic voting in FPTP systems and how they encourage tactical voting.

2. Steven Brams and Peter Fishburn's "Approval Voting" touches on how non-ranking systems like approval voting can mitigate the issues with sincere voting in FPTP contexts.

3. William H. Riker's "Liberalism against Populism" provides an analysis of the implications of various voting systems on strategic behaviors, including in U.S. elections.

These references can provide a deeper theoretical grounding on why the sincere favorite criterion is frequently not practical in FPTP and U.S. presidential elections.

Definition

A voting rule satisfies the sincere favorite criterion if there is never a need to "betray" a perfect candidate—i.e. if a voter will never achieve a worse result by honestly ranking their favorite candidate first. [1]

Arguments for

The Center for Election Science argues systems that violate the favorite betrayal criterion strongly incentivize voters to cast dishonest ballots, which can make voters feel unsatisfied or frustrated with the results despite having the opportunity to participate in the election. [11] [12] [13] [14]

Other commentators have argued that failing the favorite-betrayal criterion can increase the effectiveness of misinformation campaigns, by allowing major-party candidates to sow doubt as to whether voting honestly for one's favorite is actually the best strategy. [15]

Compliant methods

Rated voting

Because rated voting methods are not affected by Arrow's theorem, they can be both spoilerproof (satisfy IIA) and ensure positive vote weights at the same time. Taken together, these properties imply that increasing the rating of a favorite candidate can never change the result, except by causing the favorite candidate to win; therefore, giving a favorite candidate the maximum level of support is always the optimal strategy.

Examples of systems that are both spoilerproof and monotonic include score voting, approval voting, and highest medians.

Anti-plurality voting

Interpreted as a ranked voting method where every candidate but the last ranked gets one point, anti-plurality voting passes the sincere favorite criterion. Because there is no incentive to rank one's favorite last, and the method otherwise does not care where the favorite is ranked, the method passes.

Anti-plurality voting thus shows that the sincere favorite criterion is distinct from independence of irrelevant alternatives, and that ranked voting methods do not necessarily fail the criterion.

Non-compliant methods

Instant-runoff voting

This example shows that instant-runoff voting violates the favorite betrayal criterion. Assume there are four candidates: Amy, Bert, Cindy, and Dan. This election has 41 voters with the following preferences:

# of votersPreferences
10Amy > Bert > Cindy > Dan
6Bert > Amy > Cindy > Dan
5Cindy > Bert > Amy > Dan
20Dan > Amy > Cindy > Bert

Sincere voting

Assuming all voters vote in a sincere way, Cindy is awarded only 5 first place votes and is eliminated first. Her votes are transferred to Bert. In the second round, Amy is eliminated with only 10 votes. Her votes are transferred to Bert as well. Finally, Bert has 21 votes and wins against Dan, who has 20 votes.

Votes in round/
Candidate
1st2nd3rd
Amy1010
Bert61121
Cindy5
Dan202020

Result: Bert wins against Dan, after Cindy and Amy were eliminated.

Favorite betrayal

Now assume two of the voters who favor Amy (marked bold) realize the situation and insincerely vote for Cindy instead of Amy:

# of votersBallots
2Cindy > Amy > Bert > Dan
8Amy > Bert > Cindy > Dan
6Bert > Amy > Cindy > Dan
5Cindy > Bert > Amy > Dan
20Dan > Amy > Cindy > Bert

In this scenario, Cindy has 7 first place votes and so Bert is eliminated first with only 6 first place votes. His votes are transferred to Amy. In the second round, Cindy is eliminated with only 7 votes. Her votes are transferred to Amy as well. Finally, Amy has 21 votes and wins against Dan, who has 20 votes.

Votes in round/
Candidate
1st2nd3rd
Amy81421
Bert6
Cindy77
Dan202020

Result: Amy wins against Dan, after Bert and Cindy has been eliminated.

By listing Cindy ahead of their true favorite, Amy, the two insincere voters obtained a more preferred outcome (causing their favorite candidate to win). There was no way to achieve this without raising another candidate ahead of their sincere favorite. Thus, instant-runoff voting fails the favorite betrayal criterion.

Condorcet methods

See also

Related Research Articles

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

Approval voting is a single-winner electoral system in which voters mark all the candidates they support, instead of just choosing one. The candidate with the highest approval rating is elected. Approval voting is currently in use for government elections in St. Louis, Missouri, Fargo, North Dakota and in the United Nations to elect the Secretary General.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Plurality voting</span> Type of electoral system

Plurality voting refers to electoral systems in which the candidates in an electoral district who poll more than any other are elected.

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

Score voting, sometimes called range voting, is an electoral system for single-seat elections. Voters give each candidate a numerical score, and the candidate with the highest average score is elected. Score voting includes the well-known approval voting, but also lets voters give partial (in-between) approval ratings to candidates.

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

The two-round system, also called ballotage, top-two runoff, or two-round plurality, is a single winner voting method. It is sometimes called plurality-runoff, although this term can also be used for other, closely-related systems such as ranked-choice voting or the exhaustive ballot. It falls under the class of plurality-based voting rules, together with instant-runoff and first-past-the-post (FPP). In a two-round system, both rounds are held under choose-one voting, where the voter marks a single favorite candidate. The two candidates with the most votes in the first round proceed to a second round, where all other candidates are excluded.

Strategic or tactical voting is voting in consideration of possible ballots cast by other voters in order to maximize one's satisfaction with the election's results. For example, in plurality or instant-runoff, a voter may recognize their favorite candidate is unlikely to win and so instead support a candidate they think is more likely to win.

<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 or Pairwise Majority Rule Winner (PMRW). 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">Coombs' method</span> Single-winner ranked-choice electoral system

Coombs' method is a ranked voting system. Like instant-runoff (IRV-RCV), Coombs' method is a sequential-loser method, where the last-place finisher according to one method is eliminated in each round. However, unlike in instant-runoff, each round has electors voting against their least-favorite candidate; the candidate ranked last by the most voters is eliminated.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Condorcet winner criterion</span> Property of electoral systems

A Condorcet winner is a candidate who would receive the support of more than half of the electorate in a one-on-one race against any one of their opponents. Voting systems where a majority winner will always win are said to satisfy the Condorcet winner criterion. The Condorcet winner criterion extends the principle of majority rule to elections with multiple candidates.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">No-show paradox</span> When voting for a candidate makes them lose

In social choice, a no-show paradox is a pathology in some voting rules, where a candidate loses an election as a result of having too many supporters. More formally, a no-show paradox occurs when adding voters who prefer Alice to Bob causes Alice to lose the election to Bob. Voting systems without the no-show paradox are said to satisfy the participation criterion.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Majority winner criterion</span> Property of electoral systems

The majority criterion is a winner-takes-all voting system criterion that says that, if only one candidate is ranked first by over 50% of voters, that candidate must win.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Bullet voting</span> Vote supporting only a single candidate

Bullet, single-shot, or plump voting is when a voter supports only a single candidate, typically to show strong support for a single favorite.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Best-is-worst paradox</span> Same candidate placing first and last in a race

In social choice theory, the best-is-worst paradox occurs when a voting rule declares the same candidate to be both the best and worst possible winner. The worst candidate can be identified by reversing each voter's ballot, then applying the voting rule to the reversed ballots find a new "anti-winner".

Later-no-harm is a property of some ranked-choice voting systems, first described by Douglas Woodall. In later-no-harm systems, increasing the rating or rank of a candidate ranked below the winner of an election cannot cause a higher-ranked candidate to lose.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Independence of clones criterion</span> Property of electoral systems

In social choice theory, the independence of (irrelevant) clones criterion says that adding a clone, i.e. a new candidate very similar to an already-existing candidate, should not spoil the results. It can be considered a weak form of the independence of irrelevant alternatives (IIA) criterion that nevertheless is failed by a number of voting rules. A method that passes the criterion is said to be clone independent.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Instant-runoff voting</span> Single-winner ranked-choice electoral system

Instant-runoff voting (IRV) is a winner-takes-all multi-round elimination voting system that uses ranked voting to simulate a series of runoff elections, where the last-place finisher according to a plurality vote is eliminated in each round and the votes supporting the eliminated choice are transferred to their next available preference until one of the options reaches a majority of the remaining votes. Its purpose is to elect the candidate in single-member districts with majority support even when there are more than two candidates. IRV is most closely related to two-round runoff election.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Ranked voting</span> Voting systems that use ranked ballots

Ranked voting is any voting system that uses voters' rankings of candidates to choose a single winner or multiple winners. More formally, a ranked system is one that depends only on which of two candidates is preferred by a voter, and as such does not incorporate any information about intensity of preferences. Ranked voting systems vary dramatically in how preferences are tabulated and counted, which gives them very different properties.

There are a number of different criteria which can be used for voting systems in an election, including the following

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.

<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.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Tideman alternative method</span> Single-winner electoral system family

The Tideman Alternative method, also called Alternative-Smithvoting, is a voting rule developed by Nicolaus Tideman which selects a single winner using ranked ballots. This method is Smith-efficient, making it a kind of Condorcet method, and uses the alternative vote (RCV) to resolve any cyclic ties.

References

  1. 1 2 Alex Small, “Geometric construction of voting methods that protect voters’ first choices,” arXiv:1008.4331 (August 22, 2010), http://arxiv.org/abs/1008.4331.
  2. Merrill, Samuel; Nagel, Jack (1987-06-01). "The Effect of Approval Balloting on Strategic Voting under Alternative Decision Rules". American Political Science Review. 81 (2): 509–524. doi:10.2307/1961964. ISSN   0003-0554. JSTOR   1961964.
  3. Baujard, Antoinette; Gavrel, Frédéric; Igersheim, Herrade; Laslier, Jean-François; Lebon, Isabelle (September 2017). "How voters use grade scales in evaluative voting" (PDF). European Journal of Political Economy. 55: 14–28. doi:10.1016/j.ejpoleco.2017.09.006. ISSN   0176-2680. A key feature of evaluative voting is a form of independence: the voter can evaluate all the candidates in turn ... another feature of evaluative voting ... is that voters can express some degree of preference.
  4. 1 2 3 4 Wolk, Sara; Quinn, Jameson; Ogren, Marcus (2023-03-20). "STAR Voting, equality of voice, and voter satisfaction: considerations for voting method reform". Constitutional Political Economy (Journal Article). 34 (3): 310–334. doi:10.1007/s10602-022-09389-3 . Retrieved 2023-07-16.
  5. Eberhard, Kristin (2017-05-09). "Glossary of Methods for Electing Executive Officers". Sightline Institute. Retrieved 2023-12-31.
  6. 1 2 Woodall, Douglas (1997-06-27). "Monotonicity of single-seat preferential election rules". Discrete Applied Mathematics. 77 (1): 81–98. doi:10.1016/S0166-218X(96)00100-X . Retrieved 2024-05-02.
  7. Fishburn, Peter; Brams, Steven (1983-09-01). "Paradoxes of Preferential Voting". Mathematics Magazine. 56 (4): 207–214. doi:10.1080/0025570X.1983.11977044. JSTOR   2689808 . Retrieved 2024-05-02.
  8. Dellis, Arnaud; Kröger, Sabine (2023). "How Do People Vote Under Instant Runoff Voting? An Experiment on Complexity and Voting Behavior". SSRN Electronic Journal. doi:10.2139/ssrn.4602773. ISSN   1556-5068.
  9. Sullivan, Brendan (2022). An Introduction to the Math of Voting Methods. 619 Wreath. ISBN   9781958469033.
  10. Volić, Ismar (2024-04-02). "Duverger's law". Making Democracy Count. Princeton University Press. Ch. 2. doi:10.2307/jj.7492228. ISBN   978-0-691-24882-0.
  11. Hamlin, Aaron (2015-05-30). "Top 5 Ways Plurality Voting Fails". Election Science. The Center for Election Science. Retrieved 2023-07-17.
  12. Hamlin, Aaron (2019-02-07). "The Limits of Ranked-Choice Voting". Election Science. The Center for Election Science. Retrieved 2023-07-17.
  13. "Voting Method Gameability". Equal Vote. The Equal Vote Coalition. Retrieved 2023-07-17.
  14. Hamlin, Aaron; Hua, Whitney (2022-12-19). "The case for approval voting". Constitutional Political Economy. 34 (3): 335–345. doi: 10.1007/s10602-022-09381-x .
  15. Ossipoff, Michael (2013-05-20). "Schulze: Questioning a Popular Ranked Voting System". Democracy Chronicles. Retrieved 2024-01-01.