Arguing about Voting Rules

When the members of a group have to make a decision, they can use a voting rule to aggregate their preferences. But which rule to use is a difficult question. Different rules have different properties, and social choice theorists have found arguments for and against most of them. These arguments are aimed at the expert reader, used to mathematical formalism. We propose a logic-based language to instantiate such arguments in concrete terms in order to help people understand the strengths and weaknesses of different voting rules. Our approach allows us to automatically derive a justification for a given election outcome or to support a group in arguing over which voting rule to use. We exemplify our approach with an in-depth study of the Borda rule.nonouirechercheInternationa

Towards automatic argumentation about voting rules

Voting rules aggregate a group\u27s preferences to make decisions. As multiple reasonable voting rules exist, the axiomatic approach has been proposed to exhibit both their merits and paradoxical behaviors. It is however a difficult task to characterize a voting rule by such axioms, and even when a proof exists, it may be difficult to understand why a specific rule fails to satisfy a given axiom. In this article, we present an automatic method which determines whether a given rule satisfies a set of axioms. It produces evidence which can be used by non-expert users to comprehend why a rule violates some axiom and may serve to argue in favor of rules which satisfy it. Our method is based on the software analysis technique “bounded model checking”, which enables bounded verification of software programs. The method can be applied to arbitrary voting rules; we demonstrate it on the case of the Borda axiomatization and compare the Borda rule to both the Black and the Copeland voting rules

Voting by Axioms

We develop an approach for collective decision making from first principles. In this approach, rather than using a---necessarily imperfect---voting rule to map any given scenario where individual agents report their preferences into a collective decision, we identify for every concrete such scenario the most appealing set of normative principles (known as axioms in social choice theory) that would entail a unique decision and then implement that decision. We analyse some of the fundamental properties of this new approach, from both an algorithmic and a normative point of view

Explainable and Efficient Randomized Voting Rules

With a rapid growth in the deployment of AI tools for making critical decisions (or aiding humans in doing so), there is a growing demand to be able to explain to the stakeholders how these tools arrive at a decision. Consequently, voting is frequently used to make such decisions due to its inherent explainability. Recent work suggests that using randomized (as opposed to deterministic) voting rules can lead to significant efficiency gains measured via the distortion framework. However, rules that use intricate randomization can often become too complex to explain to the stakeholders; losing explainability can eliminate the key advantage of voting over black-box AI tools, which may outweigh the efficiency gains. We study the efficiency gains which can be unlocked by using voting rules that add a simple randomization step to a deterministic rule, thereby retaining explainability. We focus on two such families of rules, randomized positional scoring rules and random committee member rules, and show, theoretically and empirically, that they indeed achieve explainability and efficiency simultaneously to some extent

Collective decision-making with goals

Des agents devant prendre une décision collective sont souvent motivés par des buts individuels. Dans ces situations, deux aspects clés doivent être abordés : sélectionner une alternative gagnante à partir des voix des agents et s'assurer que les agents ne manipulent pas le résultat. Cette thèse étudie l'agrégation et la dimension stratégique des décisions collectives lorsque les agents utilisent un langage représenté de manière compacte. Nous étudions des langages de type logique : de la logique propositionnelle aux CP-nets généralisés, en passant par la logique temporelle linéaire (LTL). Notre principale contribution est l'introduction d'un cadre de vote sur les buts, dans lequel les agents soumettent des buts individuels exprimés comme des formules de la logique propositionnelle. Les fonctions d'agrégation classiques issues du vote, de l'agrégation de jugements et de la fusion de croyances sont adaptées et étudiées de manière axiomatique et computationnelle. Les propriétés axiomatiques connues dans la littérature sur la théorie du choix social sont généralisées à ce nouveau type d'entrée, ainsi que les problèmes de complexité visant à déterminer le résultat du vote. Une autre contribution importante est l'étude de l'agrégation des CP-nets généralisés, c'est-à-dire des CP-nets où la précondition de l'énoncé de préférence est une formule propositionnelle. Nous utilisons différents agrégateurs pour obtenir un classement collectif des résultats possibles. Grâce à cette thèse, deux axes de recherche sont ainsi reliés : l'agrégation des CP-nets classiques et la généralisation des CP-nets à des préconditions incomplètes. Nous contribuons également à l'étude du comportement stratégique dans des contextes de prise de décision collective et de théorie des jeux. Le cadre du vote basé sur les buts est de nouveau étudié sous l'hypothèse que les agents peuvent décider de mentir sur leur but s'ils obtiennent ainsi un meilleur résultat. L'accent est mis sur trois règles de vote majoritaires qui se révèlent manipulables. Par conséquent, nous étudions des restrictions à la fois sur le langage des buts et sur les stratégies des agents en vue d'obtenir des résultats de votes non manipulables. Nous présentons par ailleurs une extension stratégique d'un modèle récent de diffusion d'opinion sur des réseaux d'influence. Dans les jeux d'influence définis ici, les agents ont comme but des formules en LTL et ils peuvent choisir d'utiliser leur pouvoir d'influence pour s'assurer que leur but est atteint. Des solutions classiques telles que la stratégie gagnante sont étudiées pour les jeux d'influence, en relation avec la structure du réseau et les buts des agents. Enfin, nous introduisons une nouvelle classe de concurrent game structures (CGS) dans laquelle les agents peuvent avoir un contrôle partagé sur un ensemble de variables propositionnelles. De telles structures sont utilisées pour interpréter des formules de logique temporelle en temps alternés (ATL), grâce auxquelles on peut exprimer l'existence d'une stratégie gagnante pour un agent dans un jeu itéré (comme les jeux d'influence mentionnés ci-dessus). Le résultat principal montre qu'un CGS avec contrôle partagé peut être représenté comme un CGS avec contrôle exclusif. En conclusion, cette thèse contribue au domaine de la prise de décision collective en introduisant un nouveau cadre de vote basé sur des buts propositionnels. Elle présente une étude de l'agrégation des CP-nets généralisés et une extension d'un cadre de diffusion d'opinion avec des agents rationnels qui utilisent leur pouvoir d'influence. Une réduction du contrôle partagé à un contrôle exclusif dans les CGS pour l'interprétation des logiques du raisonnement stratégique est également proposée. Par le biais de langages logiques divers, les agents peuvent ainsi exprimer buts et préférences sur la décision à prendre, et les propriétés souhaitées pour le processus de décision peuvent en être garanties.Agents having to take a collective decision are often motivated by individual goals. In such scenarios, two key aspects need to be addressed. The first is defining how to select a winning alternative from the expressions of the agents. The second is making sure that agents will not manipulate the outcome. Agents should also be able to state their goals in a way that is expressive, yet not too burdensome. This dissertation studies the aggregation and the strategic component of multi-agent collective decisions where the agents use a compactly represented language. The languages we study are all related to logic: from propositional logic, to generalized CP-nets and linear temporal logic (LTL). Our main contribution is the introduction of the framework of goal-based voting, where agents submit individual goals expressed as formulas of propositional logic. Classical aggregation functions from voting, judgment aggregation, and belief merging are adapted to this setting and studied axiomatically and computationally. Desirable axiomatic properties known in the literature of social choice theory are generalized to this new type of propositional input, as well as the standard complexity problems aimed at determining the result. Another important contribution is the study of the aggregation of generalized CP-nets coming from multiple agents, i.e., CP-nets where the precondition of the preference statement is a propositional formula. We use different aggregators to obtain a collective ordering of the possible outcomes. Thanks to this thesis, two lines of research are thus bridged: the one on the aggregation of complete CP-nets, and the one on the generalization of CP-nets to incomplete preconditions. We also contribute to the study of strategic behavior in both collective decision-making and game-theoretic settings. The framework of goal-based voting is studied again under the assumption that agents can now decide to submit an untruthful goal if by doing so they can get a better outcome. The focus is on three majoritarian voting rules which are found to be manipulable. Therefore, we study restrictions on both the language of the goals and on the strategies allowed to the agents to discover islands of strategy-proofness. We also present a game-theoretic extension of a recent model of opinion diffusion over networks of influence. In the influence games defined here, agents hold goals expressed as formulas of LTL and they can choose whether to use their influence power to make sure that their goal is satisfied. Classical solution concepts such as weak dominance and winning strategy are studied for influence games, in relation to the structure of the network and the goals of the agents. Finally, we introduce a novel class of concurrent game structures (CGS) in which agents can have shared control over a set of propositional variables. Such structures are used for the interpretation of formulas of alternating-time temporal logic, thanks to which we can express the existence of a winning strategy for an agent in a repeated game (as, for instance, the influence games mentioned above). The main result shows by means of a clever construction that a CGS with shared control can be represented as a CGS with exclusive control. In conclusion, this thesis provides a valuable contribution to the field of collective decision-making by introducing a novel framework of voting based on individual propositional goals, it studies for the first time the aggregation of generalized CP-nets, it extends a framework of opinion diffusion by modelling rational agents who use their influence power as they see fit, and it provides a reduction of shared to exclusive control in CGS for the interpretation of logics of strategic reasoning. By using different logical languages, agents can thus express their goals and preferences over the decision to be taken, and desirable properties of the decision process can be ensured

Formal Methods for Trustworthy Voting Systems : From Trusted Components to Reliable Software

Voting is prominently an important part of democratic societies, and its outcome may have a dramatic and broad impact on societal progress. Therefore, it is paramount that such a society has extensive trust in the electoral process, such that the system’s functioning is reliable and stable with respect to the expectations within society. Yet, with or without the use of modern technology, voting is full of algorithmic and security challenges, and the failure to address these challenges in a controlled manner may produce fundamental flaws in the voting system and potentially undermine critical societal aspects. In this thesis, we argue for a development process of voting systems that is rooted in and assisted by formal methods that produce transparently checkable evidence for the guarantees that the final system should provide so that it can be deemed trustworthy. The goal of this thesis is to advance the state of the art in formal methods that allow to systematically develop trustworthy voting systems that can be provenly verified. In the literature, voting systems are modeled in the following four comparatively separable and distinguishable layers: (1) the physical layer, (2) the computational layer, (3) the election layer, and (4) the human layer. Current research usually either mostly stays within one of those layers or lacks machine-checkable evidence, and consequently, trusted and understandable criteria often lack formally proven and checkable guarantees on software-level and vice versa. The contributions in this work are formal methods that fill in the trust gap between the principal election layer and the computational layer by a reliable translation of trusted and understandable criteria into trustworthy software. Thereby, we enable that executable procedures can be formally traced back and understood by election experts without the need for inspection on code level, and trust can be preserved to the trustworthy system. The works in this thesis all contribute to this end and consist in five distinct contributions, which are the following: (I) a method for the generation of secure card-based communication schemes, (II) a method for the synthesis of reliable tallying procedures, (III) a method for the efficient verification of reliable tallying procedures, (IV) a method for the computation of dependable election margins for reliable audits, (V) a case study about the security verification of the GI voter-anonymization software. These contributions span formal methods on illustrative examples for each of the three principal components, (1) voter-ballot box communication, (2) election method, and (3) election management, between the election layer and the computational layer. Within the first component, the voter-ballot box communication channel, we build a bridge from the communication channel to the cryptography scheme by automatically generating secure card-based schemes from a small formal model with a parameterization of the desired security requirements. For the second component, the election method, we build a bridge from the election method to the tallying procedure by (1) automatically synthesizing a runnable tallying procedure from the desired requirements given as properties that capture the desired intuitions or regulations of fairness considerations, (2) automatically generating either comprehensible arguments or bounded proofs to compare tallying procedures based on user-definable fairness properties, and (3) automatically computing concrete election margins for a given tallying procedure, the collected ballots, and the computed election result, that enable efficient election audits. Finally, for the third and final component, the election management system, we perform a case study and apply state-of-the-art verification technology to a real-world e-voting system that has been used for the annual elections of the German Informatics Society (GI – “Gesellschaft für Informatik”) in 2019. The case study consists in the formal implementation-level security verification that the voter identities are securely anonymized and the voters’ passwords cannot be leaked. The presented methods assist the systematic development and verification of provenly trustworthy voting systems across traditional layers, i.e., from the election layer to the computational layer. They all pursue the goal of making voting systems trustworthy by reliable and explainable formal requirements. We evaluate the devised methods on minimal card-based protocols that compute a secure AND function for two different decks of cards, a classical knock-out tournament and several Condorcet rules, various plurality, scoring, and Condorcet rules from the literature, the Danish national parliamentary elections in 2015, and a state-of-the-art electronic voting system that is used for the German Informatics Society’s annual elections in 2019 and following

Transforming participation?: a comparative study of state and civil society agency within national development processes in Malawi and Ireland

In the context of growing economic, social and political polarisation between and within countries both North and South, this study addresses the question as to whether new forms of participatory governance, in the form of the Poverty Reduction Strategy Programme (PRSP) process in Malawi, and Social Partnership in Ireland, have the potential to engage multiple development discourses, and if so, under what conditions. Developing a theoretical framework to uncover the structures and dynamics underpinning both processes over time, the study highlights the interaction of domestic and global political cultures within both processes. It is argued that state actors, focused on ‘spinning’ participation to attract foreign investment, while simultaneously contracting civil society ‘partners’ in managing the fallout of the state’s economic globalisation project, are not seeking to engage multiple development discourses. The potential for such transformative participation within both processes therefore rests with civil society actors responding to the mandates of their constituents. The study identifies a key enabler in this regard as being ‘communication without’ or public awareness raising, with this enhancing visibility and public debate on both the developmental outcomes of the respective processes and the agency and actions of actors therein. While both processes are characterised by many similarities, a key difference in the area of communication is identified. While in Ireland, where domestic legacies of a hierarchical, authoritarian political culture facilitate state and civil society actors in disciplining participants within the Irish process and stifling public debate, in Malawi, these national disciplining legacies have been challenged. The study demonstrates how, in Malawi, global influences, in particular as mediated through global informational networks, have played a significant part in stimulating critical public debate, thereby transforming cultural legacies. These influences have resulted in the dominant organisation within the Malawian process tapping into the diversity of Malawian civic life, thereby raising challenges to its own form of leadership, and potentially transforming participation within its national development process

Arguing about Voting Rules

When the members of a group have to make a decision, they can use a voting rule to aggregate their preferences. But which rule to use is a difficult question. Different rules have different properties, and social choice theorists have found arguments for and against most of them. These arguments are aimed at the expert reader, used to mathematical formalism. We propose a logic-based language to instantiate such arguments in concrete terms in order to help people understand the strengths and weaknesses of different voting rules. Our approach allows us to automatically derive a justification for a given election outcome or to support a group in arguing over which voting rule to use. We exemplify our approach with an in-depth study of the Borda rule