Social utility efficiency

Last updated
Efficiency of several voting systems with an impartial culture model and 25 voters Merrill 1984 Figure 3 Social-Utility Efficiency for a Random Society.svg
Efficiency of several voting systems with an impartial culture model and 25 voters

Social utility efficiency (SUE) [2] or voter satisfaction efficiency (VSE) [3] is a metric for comparing voting methods which compares them based on the average well-being of voters. [4] [5]

Contents

Definition

Social utility efficiency is defined as the ratio between the social utility of the candidate who is actually elected by a given voting method and that of the candidate who would maximize social utility, where is the expected value over many iterations of the sum of all voter utilities for a given candidate: [6]

A voting method with 100% efficiency would always pick the candidate that maximizes voter utility. A method that chooses a winner randomly would have efficiency of 0%, and a (pathological) method that did worse than a random pick would have less than 0% efficiency.

SUE is not only affected by the voting method, but is a function of the number of voters, number of candidates, and of any strategies used by the voters. [1]

History

The concept was originally introduced as a system's "effectiveness" by Robert J. Weber in 1977, defined as: [2]

Where is the expected social utility of the given candidate, is the number of voters, and is the number of candidates. He used a random society (impartial culture) model to analytically calculate the effectiveness of FPTP, two Approval variants, and Borda, as the number of voters approaches infinity.

It was given the name "social utility efficiency" and extended to the more realistic spatial model of voting by Samuel Merrill III [1] in the 1980s, calculated statistically from random samples, with 25–201 voters and 2–10 candidates. [7] This analysis included FPTP, Runoff, IRV, Coombs, Approval, Black, and Borda (in increasing order of efficiency). (Merrill's model normalizes individual voter utility before finding the utility winner, while Weber's does not, so that Merrill considers all 2-candidate voting systems to have an SUE of 100%, decreasing with more candidates, while Weber considers them to have an effectiveness of = 81.6%, with some systems increasing with more candidates.)

In 2017, Jameson Quinn studied SUE under the name "voter satisfaction efficiency", [8] using more complex and arguably more realistic parameters, examining a wider variety of scenarios and using a hierarchical cluster model of voter behavior. He found the best performers to be ranked pairs, STAR voting, and score voting, depending on the scenario tested. [8] [9] [3]

A similar metric, referred to as "Bayesian regret", [10] measures the same property, but inverted. [11] [12] [13] They are related by the formula: [14]

where "random winner" refers to the hypothetical election method of choosing a candidate at random regardless of the opinions of the electorate (not the random ballot voting method, which is weighted towards candidates who receive more votes).

See also

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Condorcet paradox</span> Self-contradiction of majority rule

In social choice theory, Condorcet's voting paradox is a fundamental discovery by the Marquis de Condorcet that majority rule is inherently self-contradictory. The result implies that it is logically impossible for any voting system to guarantee a winner will have support from a majority of voters: for example there can be rock-paper-scissors scenario where a majority of voters will prefer A to B, B to C, and also C to A, even if every voter's individual preferences are rational and avoid self-contradiction. Examples of Condorcet's paradox are called Condorcet cycles or cyclic ties.

A likelihood function measures how well a statistical model explains observed data by calculating the probability of seeing that data under different parameter values of the model. It is constructed from the joint probability distribution of the random variable that (presumably) generated the observations. When evaluated on the actual data points, it becomes a function solely of the model parameters.

In economics, utility is a measure of a certain person's satisfaction from a certain state of the world. Over time, the term has been used with at least two meanings.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Arrow's impossibility theorem</span> Proof all ranked voting rules have spoilers

Arrow's impossibility theorem is a key result in social choice theory, showing that no ranking-based decision rule can satisfy the requirements of rational choice theory. Most notably, Arrow showed that no such rule can satisfy all of a certain set of seemingly simple and reasonable conditions that include independence of irrelevant alternatives, the principle that a choice between two alternatives A and B should not depend on the quality of some third, unrelated option C.

In statistics, maximum likelihood estimation (MLE) is a method of estimating the parameters of an assumed probability distribution, given some observed data. This is achieved by maximizing a likelihood function so that, under the assumed statistical model, the observed data is most probable. The point in the parameter space that maximizes the likelihood function is called the maximum likelihood estimate. The logic of maximum likelihood is both intuitive and flexible, and as such the method has become a dominant means of statistical inference.

A Bayesian network is a probabilistic graphical model that represents a set of variables and their conditional dependencies via a directed acyclic graph (DAG). While it is one of several forms of causal notation, causal networks are special cases of Bayesian networks. Bayesian networks are ideal for taking an event that occurred and predicting the likelihood that any one of several possible known causes was the contributing factor. For example, a Bayesian network could represent the probabilistic relationships between diseases and symptoms. Given symptoms, the network can be used to compute the probabilities of the presence of various diseases.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Social welfare function</span> Function that ranks states of society according to their desirability

In welfare economics and social choice theory, a social welfare function—also called a socialordering, ranking, utility, or choicefunction—is a function that ranks a set of social states by their desirability. Each person's preferences are combined in some way to determine which outcome is considered better by society as a whole. It can be seen as mathematically formalizing Rousseau's idea of a general will.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Loss function</span> Mathematical relation assigning a probability event to a cost

In mathematical optimization and decision theory, a loss function or cost function is a function that maps an event or values of one or more variables onto a real number intuitively representing some "cost" associated with the event. An optimization problem seeks to minimize a loss function. An objective function is either a loss function or its opposite, in which case it is to be maximized. The loss function could include terms from several levels of the hierarchy.

In statistics, a mixture model is a probabilistic model for representing the presence of subpopulations within an overall population, without requiring that an observed data set should identify the sub-population to which an individual observation belongs. Formally a mixture model corresponds to the mixture distribution that represents the probability distribution of observations in the overall population. However, while problems associated with "mixture distributions" relate to deriving the properties of the overall population from those of the sub-populations, "mixture models" are used to make statistical inferences about the properties of the sub-populations given only observations on the pooled population, without sub-population identity information. Mixture models are used for clustering, under the name model-based clustering, and also for density estimation.

A marginal likelihood is a likelihood function that has been integrated over the parameter space. In Bayesian statistics, it represents the probability of generating the observed sample for all possible values of the parameters; it can be understood as the probability of the model itself and is therefore often referred to as model evidence or simply evidence.

Variational Bayesian methods are a family of techniques for approximating intractable integrals arising in Bayesian inference and machine learning. They are typically used in complex statistical models consisting of observed variables as well as unknown parameters and latent variables, with various sorts of relationships among the three types of random variables, as might be described by a graphical model. As typical in Bayesian inference, the parameters and latent variables are grouped together as "unobserved variables". Variational Bayesian methods are primarily used for two purposes:

  1. To provide an analytical approximation to the posterior probability of the unobserved variables, in order to do statistical inference over these variables.
  2. To derive a lower bound for the marginal likelihood of the observed data. This is typically used for performing model selection, the general idea being that a higher marginal likelihood for a given model indicates a better fit of the data by that model and hence a greater probability that the model in question was the one that generated the data.

In Bayesian statistics, a maximum a posteriori probability (MAP) estimate is an estimate of an unknown quantity, that equals the mode of the posterior distribution. The MAP can be used to obtain a point estimate of an unobserved quantity on the basis of empirical data. It is closely related to the method of maximum likelihood (ML) estimation, but employs an augmented optimization objective which incorporates a prior distribution over the quantity one wants to estimate. MAP estimation can therefore be seen as a regularization of maximum likelihood estimation.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Minimax Condorcet method</span> Single-winner ranked-choice voting system

In voting systems, the Minimax Condorcet method is a single-winner ranked-choice voting method that always elects the majority (Condorcet) winner. Minimax compares all candidates against each other in a round-robin tournament, then ranks candidates by their worst election result. The candidate with the largest (maximum) number of votes in their worst (minimum) matchup is declared the winner.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Dirichlet process</span> Family of stochastic processes

In probability theory, Dirichlet processes are a family of stochastic processes whose realizations are probability distributions. In other words, a Dirichlet process is a probability distribution whose range is itself a set of probability distributions. It is often used in Bayesian inference to describe the prior knowledge about the distribution of random variables—how likely it is that the random variables are distributed according to one or another particular distribution.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Proportional approval voting</span> Multiple-winner electoral system

Proportional approval voting (PAV) is a proportional electoral system for multiwinner elections. It is a multiwinner approval method that extends the D'Hondt method of apportionment commonly used to calculate apportionments for party-list proportional representation. However, PAV allows voters to support only the candidates they approve of, rather than being forced to approve or reject all candidates on a given party list.

Computational anatomy (CA) is a discipline within medical imaging focusing on the study of anatomical shape and form at the visible or gross anatomical scale of morphology. The field is broadly defined and includes foundations in anatomy, applied mathematics and pure mathematics, including medical imaging, neuroscience, physics, probability, and statistics. It focuses on the anatomical structures being imaged, rather than the medical imaging devices. The central focus of the sub-field of computational anatomy within medical imaging is mapping information across anatomical coordinate systems most often dense information measured within a magnetic resonance image (MRI). The introduction of flows into CA, which are akin to the equations of motion used in fluid dynamics, exploit the notion that dense coordinates in image analysis follow the Lagrangian and Eulerian equations of motion. In models based on Lagrangian and Eulerian flows of diffeomorphisms, the constraint is associated to topological properties, such as open sets being preserved, coordinates not crossing implying uniqueness and existence of the inverse mapping, and connected sets remaining connected. The use of diffeomorphic methods grew quickly to dominate the field of mapping methods post Christensen's original paper, with fast and symmetric methods becoming available.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Comparison of voting rules</span> Comparative politics for electoral systems

This article discusses the methods and results of comparing different electoral systems. There are two broad ways to compare voting systems:

  1. Metrics of voter satisfaction, either through simulation or survey.
  2. Adherence to logical criteria.

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.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Condorcet efficiency</span>

Condorcet efficiency is a measurement of the performance of voting methods. It is defined as the percentage of elections for which the Condorcet winner is elected, provided there is one.

The Equal Vote Coalition is a nonpartisan American electoral reform group that advocates for voting methods including STAR Voting, Approval Voting, and Condorcet voting.

References

  1. 1 2 3 Merrill, Samuel (1984). "A Comparison of Efficiency of Multicandidate Electoral Systems". American Journal of Political Science. 28 (1): 23–48. doi:10.2307/2110786. ISSN   0092-5853. JSTOR   2110786.
  2. 1 2 Weber, Robert J. (September 1978). "Comparison of Public Choice Systems". Cowles Foundation Discussion Papers. Cowles Foundation for Research in Economics: 16, 38, 62. No. 498.
  3. 1 2 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. 34 (3): 310–334. doi: 10.1007/s10602-022-09389-3 . ISSN   1043-4062. S2CID   257653868.
  4. Mueller, Dennis C. (2003). Public choice III. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ISBN   0-511-06504-3. OCLC   191952945.
  5. Duddy, Conal (2017). "Geometry of run-off elections". Public Choice. 173 (3–4): 267–288. doi:10.1007/s11127-017-0476-2. ISSN   0048-5829. S2CID   254935333.
  6. Merrill, Samuel (2014-07-14). Making Multicandidate Elections More Democratic. Princeton University Press. ISBN   9781400859504. If the ratings are interpreted as Von Neumann-Morgenstern utilities … I define the social utility of a candidate as the sum of all voter utilities for that candidate.
  7. Merrill, Samuel (1984). "A Comparison of Efficiency of Multicandidate Electoral Systems". American Journal of Political Science. 28 (1): 23–48. doi:10.2307/2110786. ISSN   0092-5853. JSTOR   2110786.
  8. 1 2 "Voter Satisfaction Efficiency (VSE) FAQ". Jameson Quinn. Retrieved 2021-02-03.
  9. Frohnmayer, Mark. "The Election Science Behind the Reform Movement". Equal Vote. Retrieved 28 December 2020.
  10. Smith, Warren D. (2006). "Bayesian Regret for dummies". RangeVoting.org. Retrieved 2021-01-31.
  11. Hansen, Jeremy A (2014). "Comparing Approval At-Large to Plurality At-Large in Multi-Member Districts". Conference: Fifth International Workshop on Computational Social Choice. Social-utility efficiency … Smith referred to a similar formulation as Bayesian regret
  12. "Range voting with mixtures of honest and strategic voters". RangeVoting.org. Retrieved 2019-07-26. SociallyBest 0 ... RandomWinner 1 ... SociallyWorst 2.0024
  13. Smith, Warren D. (1 September 2023). "The case for score voting". Constitutional Political Economy. Springer Nature. pp. 297–309. doi:10.1007/s10602-023-09403-2 . Retrieved 30 November 2024.
  14. Quinn, Jameson (2017-02-10). "Voter Satisfaction Efficiency FAQ". GitHub Pages. Retrieved 2019-07-24.