Symmetry (social choice)

Last updated

In economics and social choice, a function satisfies anonymity, neutrality, or symmetry if the rule does not discriminate between different participants ahead of time. For example, in an election, a voter-anonymous function is one where it does not matter who casts which vote, i.e. all voters' ballots are equal ahead of time. Formally, this is defined by saying the rule returns the same outcome (whatever this may be) if the votes are "relabeled" arbitrarily, e.g. by swapping votes #1 and #2. [1] [2] Similarly, outcome-neutrality says the rule does not discriminate between different outcomes (e.g. candidates) ahead of time. Formally, if the labels assigned to each outcome are permuted arbitrarily, the returned result is permuted in the same way. [1] [2]

Contents

Some authors reserve the term anonymity for agent symmetry and neutrality for outcome-symmetry, [1] [2] but this pattern is not perfectly consistent. [3] :75

Examples

Most voting rules are anonymous and neutral by design. For example, plurality voting is anonymous and neutral, since only counts the number of first-preferences for each candidate, regardless of who cast these votes.

Any rule that uses a secret ballot must be voter-anonymous, since they do not know which voter cast which vote. However, the converse is not true (as in e.g. roll call votes).

Non-examples

An example of a non-neutral rule is a rule which says that, in case of a tie, the alternative X is selected. This is particularly prominent in cases where X is the status quo option: parliamentary procedures often specify that the status quo unless there is a strict majority against it. Other rules are non-anonymous in the case of a tied vote, e.g. when a chairman is allowed to break ties.

However, not all violations of anonymity and neutrality are due to tied votes. For example, many motions require a supermajority to pass, and other rules can give certain stakeholders a veto. The United States' electoral college is a well-known example of a non-anonymous voting rule, as the results of the election depend not just on the votes for each candidate, but also on their physical arrangement across space.

Weighted voting rules are non-anonymous, as they give some voters a higher weight than others, for example, due to their expertise or entitlement.

See also

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Droop quota</span> Quantity of votes in election studies

In the study of electoral systems, the Droop quota is the minimum number of supporters a party or candidate needs to receive in a district to guarantee they will win at least one seat in a legislature.

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

The positive response, monotonicity, or nonperversitycriterion is a principle of social choice that says increasing a candidate's ranking or rating should not cause them to lose. Positive response rules out cases where a candidate loses an election as a result of receiving too much support from voters. Rules that violate positive response are said to show perverseresponse.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Highest averages method</span> Rule for proportional allocation

The highest averages, divisor, or divide-and-round methods are a family of apportionment algorithms that aim to fairly divide a legislature between several groups, such as political parties or states. More generally, divisor methods can be used to round shares of a total, e.g. percentage points.

The Gibbard–Satterthwaite theorem is a theorem in voting theory. It was first conjectured by the philosopher Michael Dummett and the mathematician Robin Farquharson in 1961 and then proved independently by the philosopher Allan Gibbard in 1973 and economist Mark Satterthwaite in 1975. It deals with deterministic ordinal electoral systems that choose a single winner, and shows that for every voting rule of this form, at least one of the following three things must hold:

  1. The rule is dictatorial, i.e. there exists a distinguished voter who can choose the winner; or
  2. The rule limits the possible outcomes to two alternatives only; or
  3. The rule is not straightforward, i.e. there is no single always-best strategy.
<span class="mw-page-title-main">Quota method</span> Proportional-representation voting system

The quota methods are a family of apportionment rules, i.e. algorithms for distributing the seats in a legislative body among a number of administrative divisions. The quota methods are based on calculating a fixed electoral quota, i.e. a given number of votes needed to win a seat. This is used to calculate each party's seat entitlement. Every party is assigned the integer portion of this entitlement, and any seats left over are distributed according to a specified rule.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Random ballot</span> Electoral system with lottery among ballots

A random ballot or random dictatorship is a randomized electoral system where the election is decided on the basis of a single randomly-selected ballot. A closely-related variant is called random serialdictatorship, which repeats the procedure and draws another ballot if multiple candidates are tied on the first ballot.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Majority rule</span> Decision rule that selects alternatives which have a majority

In social choice theory, the majority rule (MR) is a social choice rule that says that, when comparing two options, the option preferred by more than half of the voters should win.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">May's theorem</span> Social choice theorem on superiority of majority voting

In social choice theory, May's theorem, also called the general possibility theorem, says that majority vote is the unique ranked social choice function between two candidates that satisfies the following criteria:

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Hare quota</span> Electoral system quota formula

In the study of apportionment, the Harequota is the number of voters represented by each legislator under an idealized system of proportional representation, where every legislator represents an equal number of voters. The Hare quota is the total number of votes divided by the number of seats to be filled. The Hare quota was used in the original proposal for a single transferable vote system, and is still occasionally used, although it has since been largely supplanted by the Droop quota.

The single transferable vote (STV) is a proportional representation system that elects multiple winners. It is one of several ways of choosing winners from ballots that rank candidates by preference. Under STV, an elector's vote is initially allocated to their first-ranked candidate. Candidates are elected (winners) if their vote tally reaches quota. After the winners in the first count are determined, if seats are still open, surplus votes — those in excess of an electoral quota— are transferred from winners to the remaining candidates (hopefuls) according to the surplus ballots' next usable back-up preference.

<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> Electoral system criterion

In social choice theory, the best-is-worst paradox occurs when a candidate finishes simultaneously in first- and last- place according to the same voting method. The worst candidate can be identified by reversing all ballots before rerunning the algorithm to find a single worst candidate. Such paradoxes can occur in ranked-choice runoff voting (RCV) and minimax; a well-known example is the 2022 Alaska special election, where candidate Mary Peltola simultaneously finished in first and last place.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Dictatorship mechanism</span> Theoretical rule in social choice theory

In social choice theory, a dictatorship mechanism is a degenerate voting rule or mechanism where the result depends on only one person's preferences, without considering any other voters. A serial dictatorship is similar, but also designates a series of "backup dictators", who break ties in the original dictator's choices when the dictator is indifferent.

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

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.

In the fields of mechanism design and social choice theory, Gibbard's theorem is a result proven by philosopher Allan Gibbard in 1973. It states that for any deterministic process of collective decision, at least one of the following three properties must hold:

  1. The process is dictatorial, i.e. there is a single voter whose vote chooses the outcome.
  2. The process limits the possible outcomes to two options only.
  3. The process is not straightforward; the optimal ballot for a voter "requires strategic voting", i.e. it depends on their beliefs about other voters' ballots.
<span class="mw-page-title-main">Fractional social choice</span>

Fractional, stochastic, or weighted 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, then in standard social choice exactly one of these candidates is chosen. By contrast, in fractional social choice it is possible to choose any linear combination of these, e.g. "2/3 of A and 1/3 of B".

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Fractional approval voting</span>

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:

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Mixed ballot transferable vote</span>

The mixed ballot transferable vote (MBTV) refers to a type of vote linkage-based mixed-member electoral system where a group of members are elected on local (lower) tier, for example in single-member districts (SMDs). Other members are elected on a compensatory national (upper) tier from a list and voters cast a single ballot where they may indicate their preferences separately.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Vote-ratio monotonicity</span> Property of apportionment methods

Vote-ratio, weight-ratio, or population-ratio monotonicity is a property of some apportionment methods. It says that if the entitlement for grows at a faster rate than , should not lose a seat to . More formally, if the ratio of votes or populations increases, then should not lose a seat while gains a seat. Apportionments violating this rule are called population paradoxes.

In mechanism design, a regret-free truth-telling mechanism is a mechanism in which each player who reveals his true private information does not feel regret after seeing the mechanism outcome. A regret-free mechanism incentivizes agents who want to avoid regret to report their preferences truthfully.

References

  1. 1 2 3 Bogomolnaia, Anna; Moulin, Hervé; Stong, Richard (2005-06-01). "Collective choice under dichotomous preferences" (PDF). Journal of Economic Theory. 122 (2): 165–184. doi:10.1016/j.jet.2004.05.005. ISSN   0022-0531.
  2. 1 2 3 Felix Brandt (2017-10-26). "Roling the Dice: Recent Results in Probabilistic Social Choice". In Endriss, Ulle (ed.). Trends in Computational Social Choice. Lulu.com. ISBN   978-1-326-91209-3.
  3. Pukelsheim, Friedrich (2017), Pukelsheim, Friedrich (ed.), "Divisor Methods of Apportionment: Divide and Round", Proportional Representation: Apportionment Methods and Their Applications, Cham: Springer International Publishing, pp. 71–93, doi:10.1007/978-3-319-64707-4_4, ISBN   978-3-319-64707-4 , retrieved 2021-09-01