Implementation by Vote-Buying Mechanisms

Vote-buying mechanisms allow agents to express any level of support for their preferred alternative at an increasing cost. Focusing on large societies with wealth inequality, we prove that the family of binary social choice rules implemented by well-behaved vote-buying mechanisms is indexed by a single parameter, which determines the importance assigned to the agents’ willingness to pay to affect outcomes and to the number of supporters for each alternative. This parameter depends solely on the elasticity of the cost function near its origin: as this elasticity decreases, the intensities of support matter relatively more for outcomes than the supporters’ count. (JEL D63, D71, D72)

Agendas in legislative decision‐making

Despite the wide variety of agendas used in legislative settings, the literature on sophisticated voting has focused on two formats: the so‐called Euro–Latin and Anglo–American agendas. In the current paper, I introduce a broad class of agendas whose defining structural features—history‐independence and persistence—are common in legislative settings. I then characterize the social choice rules implemented by sophisticated voting on agendas with these two features. I also characterize the rules implemented by more specialized formats (called priority agendas and convex agendas) whose structure is closely related to the prevailing rules for order‐of‐voting used by legislatures. These results establish a clear connection between structure and outcomes for a wide range of legislative agendas.

Communication, Distortion, and Randomness in Metric Voting

In distortion-based analysis of social choice rules over metric spaces, voters and candidates are jointly embedded in a metric space. Voters rank candidates by non-decreasing distance. The mechanism, receiving only this ordinal (comparison) information, must select a candidate approximately minimizing the sum of distances from all voters to the chosen candidate. It is known that while the Copeland rule and related rules guarantee distortion at most 5, the distortion of many other standard voting rules, such as Plurality, Veto, or k-approval, grows unboundedly in the number n of candidates.An advantage of Plurality, Veto, or k-approval with small k is that they require less communication from the voters; all deterministic social choice rules known to achieve constant distortion require voters to transmit their complete rankings of all candidates. This motivates our study of the tradeoff between the distortion and the amount of communication in deterministic social choice rules.We show that any one-round deterministic voting mechanism in which each voter communicates only the candidates she ranks in a given set of k positions must have distortion at least 2n-k/k; we give a mechanism achieving an upper bound of O(n/k), which matches the lower bound up to a constant. For more general communication-bounded voting mechanisms, in which each voter communicates b bits of information about her ranking, we show a slightly weaker lower bound of Ω(n/b) on the distortion.For randomized mechanisms, Random Dictatorship achieves expected distortion strictly smaller than 3, almost matching a lower bound of 3 − 2/n for any randomized mechanism that only receives each voter's top choice. We close this gap, by giving a simple randomized social choice rule which only uses each voter's first choice, and achieves expected distortion 3 − 2/n.

An Analysis Framework for Metric Voting based on LP Duality

Distortion-based analysis has established itself as a fruitful framework for comparing voting mechanisms. m voters and n candidates are jointly embedded in an (unknown) metric space, and the voters submit rankings of candidates by non-decreasing distance from themselves. Based on the submitted rankings, the social choice rule chooses a winning candidate; the quality of the winner is the sum of the (unknown) distances to the voters. The rule's choice will in general be suboptimal, and the worst-case ratio between the cost of its chosen candidate and the optimal candidate is called the rule's distortion. It was shown in prior work that every deterministic rule has distortion at least 3, while the Copeland rule and related rules guarantee distortion at most 5; a very recent result gave a rule with distortion 2 + √5 ≈ 4.236.We provide a framework based on LP-duality and flow interpretations of the dual which provides a simpler and more unified way for proving upper bounds on the distortion of social choice rules. We illustrate the utility of this approach with three examples. First, we show that the Ranked Pairs and Schulze rules have distortion Θ(√n). Second, we give a fairly simple proof of a strong generalization of the upper bound of 5 on the distortion of Copeland, to social choice rules with short paths from the winning candidate to the optimal candidate in generalized weak preference graphs. A special case of this result recovers the recent 2 + √5 guarantee. Finally, our framework naturally suggests a combinatorial rule that is a strong candidate for achieving distortion 3, which had also been proposed in recent work. We prove that the distortion bound of 3 would follow from any of three combinatorial conjectures we formulate.

Partially-honest Nash implementation: a full characterization

A partially-honest individual is a person who follows the maxim, “Do not lie if you do not have to”, to serve your material interest. By assuming that the mechanism designer knows that there is at least one partially-honest individual in a society of $$ n\ge 3$$ n ≥ 3 individuals, a social choice rule that can be Nash implemented is termed partially-honestly Nash implementable. The paper offers a complete characterization of the (unanimous) social choice rules that are partially-honestly Nash implementable. When all individuals are partially-honest, then any (unanimous) rule is partially-honestly Nash implementable. An account of the welfare implications of partially-honest Nash implementation is provided in a variety of environments.