In the context of computational social choice, we study voting methods that assign a set of winners to each profile of voter preferences. A voting method satisfies the property of positive involvement (PI) if for any election in which a candidate x would be among the winners, adding another voter to the election who ranks x first does not cause x to lose. Surprisingly, a number of standard voting methods violate this natural property. In this paper, we investigate different ways of measuring the extent to which a voting method violates PI, using computer simulations. We consider the probability (under different probability models for preferences) of PI violations in randomly drawn profiles vs. profile-coalition pairs (involving coalitions of different sizes). We argue that in order to choose between a voting method that satisfies PI and one that does not, we should consider the probability of PI violation conditional on the voting methods choosing different winners. We should also relativize the probability of PI violation to what we call voter potency, the probability that a voter causes a candidate to lose. Although absolute frequencies of PI violations may be low, after this conditioning and relativization, we see that under certain voting methods that violate PI, much of a voter's potency is turned against them - in particular, against their desire to see their favorite candidate elected.
翻译:在计算社会选择的背景下,我们研究为每个选民偏好配置一组赢家的投票方法。如果在任何选举中候选人x将是赢家之一,那么一种投票方法就满足了积极的参与(PI)的属性,如果在任何选举中候选人x将是赢家之一,在选举中增加另一名排名x并不导致损失的选民。令人惊讶的是,一些标准投票方法违反了这种自然财产。在本文中,我们利用计算机模拟,调查衡量投票方法违反PI程度的不同方法。我们考虑(在不同的偏好概率模型下)PI违规的可能性,随机绘制的特征与组合(涉及不同规模的联盟 ) 。我们争辩说,为了在满足PI的投票方法与不导致损失的投票方法之间做出选择,我们应该考虑PI违规的可能性取决于选择不同的选举方法。我们还应该将PI违规的可能性与我们所谓的选民能力,选民造成候选人损失的可能性相近。尽管PI违规的绝对频率可能较低,但经过这种调节和转变后,我们发现在反对其选举意愿的某个特定方法下,我们可以看到其投票方式会违反特定的投票方法。