474 research outputs found
X THEN X: Manipulation of Same-System Runoff Elections
Do runoff elections, using the same voting rule as the initial election but
just on the winning candidates, increase or decrease the complexity of
manipulation? Does allowing revoting in the runoff increase or decrease the
complexity relative to just having a runoff without revoting? For both weighted
and unweighted voting, we show that even for election systems with simple
winner problems the complexity of manipulation, manipulation with runoffs, and
manipulation with revoting runoffs are independent, in the abstract. On the
other hand, for some important, well-known election systems we determine what
holds for each of these cases. For no such systems do we find runoffs lowering
complexity, and for some we find that runoffs raise complexity. Ours is the
first paper to show that for natural, unweighted election systems, runoffs can
increase the manipulation complexity
Eliminating the Weakest Link: Making Manipulation Intractable?
Successive elimination of candidates is often a route to making manipulation
intractable to compute. We prove that eliminating candidates does not
necessarily increase the computational complexity of manipulation. However, for
many voting rules used in practice, the computational complexity increases. For
example, it is already known that it is NP-hard to compute how a single voter
can manipulate the result of single transferable voting (the elimination
version of plurality voting). We show here that it is NP-hard to compute how a
single voter can manipulate the result of the elimination version of veto
voting, of the closely related Coombs' rule, and of the elimination versions of
a general class of scoring rules.Comment: To appear in Proceedings of Twenty-Sixth Conference on Artificial
Intelligence (AAAI-12
- …