Results 11  20
of
88
A sufficient condition for voting rules to be frequently manipulable
 In Proceedings of the Ninth ACM Conference on Electronic Commerce (EC
, 2008
"... The GibbardSatterthwaite Theorem states that (in unrestricted settings) any reasonable voting rule is manipulable. Recently, a quantitative version of this theorem was proved by Ehud Friedgut, Gil Kalai, and Noam Nisan: when the number of alternatives is three, for any neutral voting rule that is f ..."
Abstract

Cited by 45 (10 self)
 Add to MetaCart
(Show Context)
The GibbardSatterthwaite Theorem states that (in unrestricted settings) any reasonable voting rule is manipulable. Recently, a quantitative version of this theorem was proved by Ehud Friedgut, Gil Kalai, and Noam Nisan: when the number of alternatives is three, for any neutral voting rule that is far from any dictatorship, there exists a voter such that a random manipulation—that is, the true preferences and the strategic vote are all drawn i.i.d., uniformly at random—will succeed with a probability of Ω ( 1), where n is the n number of voters. However, it seems that the techniques used to prove this theorem can not be fully extended to more than three alternatives. In this paper, we give a more limited result that does apply to four or more alternatives. We give a sufficient condition for a voting rule to be randomly manipulable with a probability of Ω ( 1) for at least one voter, when the number of alternatives is held n fixed. Specifically, our theorem states that if a voting rule r satisfies 1. homogeneity, 2. anonymity, 3. nonimposition, 4. a cancelingout condition, and 5. there exists a stable profile that is still stable after one given alternative is uniformly moved to different positions; then there exists a voter such that a random manipulation for that voter will succeed with a probability of Ω ( 1). We show that n many common voting rules satisfy these conditions, for example any positional scoring rule, Copeland, STV, maximin, and ranked pairs.
The shield that never was: Societies with singlepeaked preferences are more open to manipulation and control
 In Proceedings of the 12th Conference on Theoretical Aspects of Rationality and Knowledge
, 2009
"... Much work has been devoted, during the past twenty years, to using complexity to protect elections from manipulation and control. Many results have been obtained showing NPhardness shields, and recently there has been much focus on whether such worstcase hardness protections can be bypassed by fre ..."
Abstract

Cited by 42 (14 self)
 Add to MetaCart
Much work has been devoted, during the past twenty years, to using complexity to protect elections from manipulation and control. Many results have been obtained showing NPhardness shields, and recently there has been much focus on whether such worstcase hardness protections can be bypassed by frequently correct heuristics or by approximations. This paper takes a very different approach: We argue that when electorates follow the canonical political science model of societal preferences the complexity shield never existed in the first place. In particular, we show that for electorates having singlepeaked preferences, many existing NPhardness results on manipulation and control evaporate. 1
Multimode Control Attacks on Elections
"... In 1992, Bartholdi, Tovey, and Trick [1992] opened the study of control attacks on elections—attempts to improve the election outcome by such actions as adding/deleting candidates or voters. That work has led to many results on how algorithms can be used to find attacks on elections and how complexi ..."
Abstract

Cited by 33 (12 self)
 Add to MetaCart
In 1992, Bartholdi, Tovey, and Trick [1992] opened the study of control attacks on elections—attempts to improve the election outcome by such actions as adding/deleting candidates or voters. That work has led to many results on how algorithms can be used to find attacks on elections and how complexitytheoretic hardness results can be used as shields against attacks. However, all the work in this line has assumed that the attacker employs just a single type of attack. In this paper, we model and study the case in which the attacker launches a multipronged (i.e., multimode) attack. We do so to more realistically capture the richness of reallife settings. For example, an attacker might simultaneously try to suppress some voters, attract new voters into the election, and introduce a spoiler candidate. Our model provides a unified framework for such varied attacks, and by constructing polynomialtime multiprong attack algorithms we prove that for various election systems even such concerted, flexible attacks can be perfectly planned in deterministic polynomial time. 1
Swap bribery
, 2009
"... Abstract. In voting theory, bribery is a form of manipulative behavior in which an external actor (the briber) offers to pay the voters to change their votes in order to get her preferred candidate elected. We investigate a model of bribery where the price of each vote depends on the amount of chang ..."
Abstract

Cited by 32 (12 self)
 Add to MetaCart
Abstract. In voting theory, bribery is a form of manipulative behavior in which an external actor (the briber) offers to pay the voters to change their votes in order to get her preferred candidate elected. We investigate a model of bribery where the price of each vote depends on the amount of change that the voter is asked to implement. Specifically, in our model the briber can change a voter’s preference list by paying for a sequence of swaps of consecutive candidates. Each swap may have a different price; the price of a bribery is the sum of the prices of all swaps that it involves. We prove complexity results for this model, which we call swap bribery, for a broad class of voting rules, including variants of approval and kapproval, Borda, Copeland, and maximin. 1
Averagecase tractability of manipulation in voting via the fraction of manipulators
 In Proc. of AAMAS
, 2007
"... Recent results have established that a variety of voting rules are computationally hard to manipulate in the worstcase; this arguably provides some guarantee of resistance to manipulation when the voters have bounded computational power. Nevertheless, it has become apparent that a truly dependable ..."
Abstract

Cited by 31 (4 self)
 Add to MetaCart
(Show Context)
Recent results have established that a variety of voting rules are computationally hard to manipulate in the worstcase; this arguably provides some guarantee of resistance to manipulation when the voters have bounded computational power. Nevertheless, it has become apparent that a truly dependable obstacle to manipulation can only be provided by voting rules that are averagecase hard to manipulate. In this paper, we analytically demonstrate that, with respect to a wide range of distributions over votes, the coalitional manipulation problem can be decided with overwhelming probability of success by simply considering the ratio between the number of truthful and untruthful voters. Our results can be employed to significantly focus the search for that elusive averagecasehardtomanipulate voting rule, but at the same time these results also strengthen the case against the existence of such a rule. 1
Sincerestrategy preferencebased approval voting broadly resists control
 In Proceedings of the 33rd International Symposium on Mathematical Foundations of Computer Science
, 2008
"... We study sincerestrategy preferencebased approval voting (SPAV), a system proposed by Brams and Sanver [BS06], with respect to procedural control. In such control scenarios, an external agent seeks to change the outcome of an election via actions such as adding/deleting/partitioning either candid ..."
Abstract

Cited by 30 (6 self)
 Add to MetaCart
(Show Context)
We study sincerestrategy preferencebased approval voting (SPAV), a system proposed by Brams and Sanver [BS06], with respect to procedural control. In such control scenarios, an external agent seeks to change the outcome of an election via actions such as adding/deleting/partitioning either candidates or voters. SPAV combines the voters ’ preference rankings with their approvals of candidates, and we adapt it here so as to keep its useful features with respect to approval strategies even in the presence of control actions. We prove that this system is computationally resistant (i.e., the corresponding control problems are NPhard) to 19 out of 22 types of constructive and destructive control. Thus, SPAV has more resistances to control, by three, than is currently known for any other natural voting system with a polynomialtime winner problem. In particular, SPAV is (after Copeland voting, see Faliszewski et al. [FHHR08]) the second natural voting system with an easy winnerdetermination procedure that is known to have full resistance to constructive control, and unlike Copeland voting it in addition displays broad resistance to destructive control. 1
An empirical study of the manipulability of single transferable voting
 In: Proc. of the 19th ECAI, IOS Press
, 2010
"... Abstract. Voting is a simple mechanism to combine together the preferences of multiple agents. Agents may try to manipulate the result of voting by misreporting their preferences. One barrier that might exist to such manipulation is computational complexity. In particular, it has been shown that it ..."
Abstract

Cited by 27 (12 self)
 Add to MetaCart
(Show Context)
Abstract. Voting is a simple mechanism to combine together the preferences of multiple agents. Agents may try to manipulate the result of voting by misreporting their preferences. One barrier that might exist to such manipulation is computational complexity. In particular, it has been shown that it is NPhard to compute how to manipulate a number of different voting rules. However, NPhardness only bounds the worstcase complexity. Recent theoretical results suggest that manipulation may often be easy in practice. In this paper, we study empirically the manipulability of single transferable voting (STV) to determine if computational complexity is really a barrier to manipulation. STV was one of the first voting rules shown to be NPhard. It also appears one of the harder voting rules to manipulate. We sample a number of distributions of votes including uniform and real world elections. In almost every election in our experiments, it was easy to compute how a single agent could manipulate the election or to prove that manipulation by a single agent was impossible. 1