IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/arx/papers/2106.01947.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

The Smoothed Satisfaction of Voting Axioms

Author

Listed:
  • Lirong Xia

Abstract

We initiate the work towards a comprehensive picture of the smoothed satisfaction of voting axioms, to provide a finer and more realistic foundation for comparing voting rules. We adopt the smoothed social choice framework, where an adversary chooses arbitrarily correlated "ground truth" preferences for the agents, on top of which random noises are added. We focus on characterizing the smoothed satisfaction of two well-studied voting axioms: Condorcet criterion and participation. We prove that for any fixed number of alternatives, when the number of voters $n$ is sufficiently large, the smoothed satisfaction of the Condorcet criterion under a wide range of voting rules is $1$, $1-\exp(-\Theta(n))$, $\Theta(n^{-0.5})$, $ \exp(-\Theta(n))$, or being $\Theta(1)$ and $1-\Theta(1)$ at the same time; and the smoothed satisfaction of participation is $1-\Theta(n^{-0.5})$. Our results address open questions by Berg and Lepelley in 1994 for these rules, and also confirm the following high-level message: the Condorcet criterion is a bigger concern than participation under realistic models.

Suggested Citation

  • Lirong Xia, 2021. "The Smoothed Satisfaction of Voting Axioms," Papers 2106.01947, arXiv.org.
    • Handle: RePEc:arx:papers:2106.01947
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://arxiv.org/pdf/2106.01947
    File Function: Latest version
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Gehrlein, William V. & Fishburn, Peter C., 1978. "Probabilities of election outcomes for large electorates," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 19(1), pages 38-49, October.
    2. Samuel Merrill, 1985. "A statistical model for Condorcet efficiency based on simulation under spatial model assumptions," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 47(2), pages 389-403, January.
    3. Mostapha Diss & Vincent Merlin (ed.), 2021. "Evaluating Voting Systems with Probability Models," Studies in Choice and Welfare, Springer, number 978-3-030-48598-6, December.
    4. Peter C. Fishburn, 1974. "Aspects of One-Stage Voting Rules," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 21(4), pages 422-427, December.
    5. William V. Gehrlein & Dominique Lepelley, 2011. "Voting paradoxes and group coherence: the condorcet efficiency of voting rules," Post-Print hal-01243452, HAL.
    6. Fishburn, Peter C., 1974. "Paradoxes of Voting," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 68(2), pages 537-546, June.
    7. Felix Brandt & Johannes Hofbauer & Martin Strobel, 2021. "Exploring the No-Show Paradox for Condorcet Extensions," Studies in Choice and Welfare, in: Mostapha Diss & Vincent Merlin (ed.), Evaluating Voting Systems with Probability Models, pages 251-273, Springer.
    8. Amartya Sen, 1999. "The Possibility of Social Choice," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 89(3), pages 349-378, June.
    9. Moulin, Herve, 1988. "Condorcet's principle implies the no show paradox," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 45(1), pages 53-64, June.
    10. Lepelley, Dominique & Chantreuil, Frederic & Berg, Sven, 1996. "The likelihood of monotonicity paradoxes in run-off elections," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 31(3), pages 133-146, June.
    11. Markus Schulze, 2011. "A new monotonic, clone-independent, reversal symmetric, and condorcet-consistent single-winner election method," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 36(2), pages 267-303, February.
    12. Satterthwaite, Mark Allen, 1975. "Strategy-proofness and Arrow's conditions: Existence and correspondence theorems for voting procedures and social welfare functions," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 10(2), pages 187-217, April.
    13. William V. Gehrlein & Dominique Lepelley, 2011. "Voting Paradoxes and Group Coherence," Studies in Choice and Welfare, Springer, number 978-3-642-03107-6, December.
    14. Nurmi, Hannu, 1992. "An Assessment of Voting System Simulations," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 73(4), pages 459-487, June.
    15. Gilboa, Itzhak & Schmeidler, David, 1989. "Maxmin expected utility with non-unique prior," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 18(2), pages 141-153, April.
    16. Lirong Xia, 2020. "How Likely Are Large Elections Tied?," Papers 2011.03791, arXiv.org, revised Jul 2021.
    17. Gibbard, Allan, 1973. "Manipulation of Voting Schemes: A General Result," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 41(4), pages 587-601, July.
    18. William V. Gehrlein, 2006. "Condorcet’s Paradox," Theory and Decision Library C, Springer, number 978-3-540-33799-7, March.
    19. Gehrlein, William V. & Fishburn, Peter C., 1976. "The probability of the paradox of voting: A computable solution," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 13(1), pages 14-25, August.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Lirong Xia, 2021. "Semi-Random Impossibilities of Condorcet Criterion," Papers 2107.06435, arXiv.org, revised Aug 2022.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Lirong Xia, 2021. "Semi-Random Impossibilities of Condorcet Criterion," Papers 2107.06435, arXiv.org, revised Aug 2022.
    2. Harrison-Trainor, Matthew, 2022. "An analysis of random elections with large numbers of voters," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 116(C), pages 68-84.
    3. Eric Kamwa, 2022. "Scoring Rules, Ballot Truncation, and the Truncation Paradox," Working Papers hal-03632662, HAL.
    4. Eric Kamwa, 2022. "Scoring rules, ballot truncation, and the truncation paradox," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 192(1), pages 79-97, July.
    5. Eric Kamwa & Vincent Merlin & Faty Mbaye Top, 2023. "Scoring Run-off Rules, Single-peaked Preferences and Paradoxes of Variable Electorate," Working Papers hal-03143741, HAL.
    6. Brandl, Florian & Brandt, Felix, 0. "A natural adaptive process for collective decision-making," Theoretical Economics, Econometric Society.
    7. Hiroki Saitoh, 2022. "Characterization of tie-breaking plurality rules," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 59(1), pages 139-173, July.
    8. Peter Kurrild-Klitgaard, 2014. "Empirical social choice: an introduction," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 158(3), pages 297-310, March.
    9. Maksim Gladyshev, 2019. "Vulnerability Of Voting Paradoxes As A Criteria For Voting Procedure Selection," HSE Working papers WP BRP 70/PS/2019, National Research University Higher School of Economics.
    10. Dan S. Felsenthal & Hannu Nurmi, 2018. "Monotonicity Violations by Borda’s Elimination and Nanson’s Rules: A Comparison," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 27(4), pages 637-664, August.
    11. Lirong Xia, 2020. "How Likely Are Large Elections Tied?," Papers 2011.03791, arXiv.org, revised Jul 2021.
    12. Gehrlein, William V. & Moyouwou, Issofa & Lepelley, Dominique, 2013. "The impact of voters’ preference diversity on the probability of some electoral outcomes," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 66(3), pages 352-365.
    13. Boniface Mbih & Issofa Moyouwou & Abdoul Aziz Ndiaye, 2009. "Parliamentary voting rules and strategic candidacy," Economics Bulletin, AccessEcon, vol. 29(2), pages 1371-1379.
    14. Sebastien Courtin & Boniface Mbih & Issofa Moyouwou, 2009. "Susceptibility to coalitional strategic sponsoring The case of parliamentary agendas," Post-Print hal-00914855, HAL.
    15. Stensholt, Eivind, 2019. "MMP-elections and the assembly size," Discussion Papers 2019/15, Norwegian School of Economics, Department of Business and Management Science.
    16. Mostapha Diss & Eric Kamwa & Abdelmonaim Tlidi, 2019. "On some k-scoring rules for committee elections: agreement and Condorcet Principle," Working Papers hal-02147735, HAL.
    17. Eivind Stensholt, 2013. "What shall we do with the cyclic profile?," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 40(1), pages 229-262, January.
    18. M. Sanver & William Zwicker, 2012. "Monotonicity properties and their adaptation to irresolute social choice rules," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 39(2), pages 371-398, July.
    19. Conal Duddy, 2014. "Condorcet’s principle and the strong no-show paradoxes," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 77(2), pages 275-285, August.
    20. Eric Kamwa & Issofa Moyouwou, 2019. "Susceptibility to Manipulation by Sincere Truncation : the Case of Scoring Rules and Scoring Runoff Systems," Working Papers hal-02185965, HAL.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:arx:papers:2106.01947. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: arXiv administrators (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://arxiv.org/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.