skip to main content
10.5555/3306127.3332003acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagesaamasConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article

Avoiding Social Disappointment in Elections

Published: 08 May 2019 Publication History

Abstract

Mechanism design is concerned with settings where a policy maker (or social planner) faces the problem of aggregating the announced preferences of multiple agents into a collective (or social), system-wide decision. One of the most important ways for aggregating preference that has been used in multi-agent systems is election. In an election, the aim is to select the candidate who reflects the common will of society. Despite the importance of this subject, in real-world situations, under special circumstances, the result of the election does not respect the purpose of those who execute it and the election leads to dissatisfaction of a large amount of people and in some cases causes polarization in societies. To analyze these situations, we introduce new notion called social disappointment and we show which voting rules can prevent it in elections. In addition, we propose new protocols to prevent social disappointment in elections. A version of the impossibility theorem is proved regarding social disappointment in elections, showing that there is no voting rule for four or more candidates that simultaneously satisfies avoiding social disappointment and Condorcet winner criteria. We empirically compared our protocols with seven well-known voting protocols and we observed that our protocols are capable of preventing social disappointment and are more robust against manipulations.

References

[1]
Kenneth Arrow. 1950. A difficulty in the concept of social welfare. Journal of Political Economy 58, 1 (1950), 328--346.
[2]
Kenneth Arrow. 1951. Social Choice and Individual Values (1st ed.). Yale University Press, New York, NY.
[3]
Vincent Conitzer and Toby Walsh. 2016. Barriers to Manipulation in Voting. In Handbook of Computational Social Choice (1st ed.), F. Brandt, V. Conitzer, U. Endriss, J. Lang, and A. Procaccia (Eds.). Cambridge University Press, New York, Chapter 6, 127--145.
[4]
Marquis de Condorcet. 1785. Essai sur l'application de l'analyse á la probabilité des décisions rendues á la pluralité des voix. Imprimerie Royale, Paris (1785). Translated in English in I. McLean and E. Hewitt, eds., Condorcet: Foundations of Social Choice and Political Theory (Edward Elgar, Aldershot, England) pp. 120--158 (1994).
[5]
Bernard Grofman and Scott L. Feld. 2004. If you like the alternative vote (a.k.a. the instant runoff), then you ought to know about the Coombs rule. Electoral Studies 23 (2004), 641--659.
[6]
Mohammad Ali Javidian, Pooyan Jamshidi, and Rasoul Ramezanian. 2019. Avoiding Social Disappointment in Elections (extended version). arXiv. (2019).
[7]
Benjamin Reilly. 2001. Democracy in Divided Societies: Electoral Engineering for Conflict Management (1st ed.). Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.
[8]
Arthur Robinson and Daniel H. Ullman. 2017. The Mathematics of Politics (2nd ed.). CRC Press, New York, NY.
[9]
Alan D. Taylor. 2005. Social Choice and the Mathematics of Manipulation (1st ed.). Cambridge University Press, New York, NY.

Index Terms

  1. Avoiding Social Disappointment in Elections
        Index terms have been assigned to the content through auto-classification.

        Recommendations

        Comments

        Information & Contributors

        Information

        Published In

        cover image ACM Conferences
        AAMAS '19: Proceedings of the 18th International Conference on Autonomous Agents and MultiAgent Systems
        May 2019
        2518 pages
        ISBN:9781450363099

        Sponsors

        Publisher

        International Foundation for Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems

        Richland, SC

        Publication History

        Published: 08 May 2019

        Check for updates

        Author Tags

        1. impossibility theorem
        2. manipulation
        3. mechanism design
        4. social choice theory
        5. social disappointment
        6. voting procedures

        Qualifiers

        • Research-article

        Conference

        AAMAS '19
        Sponsor:

        Acceptance Rates

        AAMAS '19 Paper Acceptance Rate 193 of 793 submissions, 24%;
        Overall Acceptance Rate 1,155 of 5,036 submissions, 23%

        Contributors

        Other Metrics

        Bibliometrics & Citations

        Bibliometrics

        Article Metrics

        • 0
          Total Citations
        • 32
          Total Downloads
        • Downloads (Last 12 months)1
        • Downloads (Last 6 weeks)0
        Reflects downloads up to 05 Jan 2025

        Other Metrics

        Citations

        View Options

        Login options

        View options

        PDF

        View or Download as a PDF file.

        PDF

        eReader

        View online with eReader.

        eReader

        Media

        Figures

        Other

        Tables

        Share

        Share

        Share this Publication link

        Share on social media