Strategic Voting and Social Networks

With the ever increasing ubiquity of social networks in our everyday lives, comes an increasing urgency for us to understand their impact on human behavior. Social networks quantify the ways in which we communicate with each other, and therefore shape the flow of information through the community. It is this same flow of information that we utilize to make sound, strategic decisions. This thesis focuses on one particular type of decisions: voting. When a community engages in voting, it is soliciting the opinions of its members, who present it in the form of a ballot. The community may then choose a course of action based on the submitted ballots. Individual voters, however, are under no obligation to submit sincere ballots that accurately reflects their opinions; they may instead submit a strategic ballot in hopes of affecting the election's outcome to their advantage. This thesis examines the interplay between social network structure and strategic voting behavior. In particular, we will explore how social network structure affects the flow of information through a population, and thereby affect the strategic behavior of voters, and ultimately, the outcomes of elections. We will begin by considering how network structure affects information propagation. This work builds upon the rich body of literature called opinion dynamics by proposing a model for skeptical agents --- agents that distrust other agents for holding opinions that differ too wildly from their own. We show that network structure is one of several factors that affects the degree of penetration that radical opinions can achieve through the community. Next, we propose a model for strategic voting in social networks, where voters are self-interested and rational, but may only use the limited information available through their social network contacts to formulate strategic ballots. In particular, we study the ``Echo Chamber Effect'', the tendency for humans to favor connections with similar people, and show that it leads to the election of less suitable candidates. We also extend this voter model by using boundedly-rational heuristics to scale up our simulations to larger populations. We propose a general framework for voting agents embedded in social networks, and show that our heuristic models can demonstrate a variation of the ``Micromega Law'' which relates the popularity of smaller parties to the size of the population. Finally, we examine another avenue for strategic behavior: choosing when to cast your vote. We propose a type of voting mechanism called ``Sticker Voting'', where voters cast ballots by placing stickers on their favored alternatives, thereby publicly and irrevocably declaring their support. We present a complete analysis of several simple instances of the Sticker Voting game and discuss how our results reflect human voting behavior

Social Choice for Partial Preferences Using Imputation

Within the field of multiagent systems, the area of computational social choice considers the problems arising when decisions must be made collectively by a group of agents. Usually such systems collect a ranking of the alternatives from each member of the group in turn, and aggregate these individual rankings to arrive at a collective decision. However, when there are many alternatives to consider, individual agents may be unwilling, or unable, to rank all of them, leading to decisions that must be made on the basis of incomplete information. While earlier approaches attempt to work with the provided rankings by making assumptions about the nature of the missing information, this can lead to undesirable outcomes when the assumptions do not hold, and is ill-suited to certain problem domains. In this thesis, we propose a new approach that uses machine learning algorithms (both conventional and purpose-built) to generate plausible completions of each agent’s rankings on the basis of the partial rankings the agent provided (imputations), in a way that reflects the agents’ true preferences. We show that the combination of existing social choice functions with certain classes of imputation algorithms, which forms the core of our proposed solution, is equivalent to a form of social choice. Our system then undergoes an extensive empirical validation under 40 different test conditions, involving more than 50,000 group decision problems generated from real-world electoral data, and is found to outperform existing competitors significantly, leading to better group decisions overall. Detailed empirical findings are also used to characterize the behaviour of the system, and illustrate the circumstances in which it is most advantageous. A general testbed for comparing solutions using real-world and artificial data (Prefmine) is then described, in conjunction with results that justify its design decisions. We move on to propose a new machine learning algorithm intended specifically to learn and impute the preferences of agents, and validate its effectiveness. This Markov-Tree approach is demonstrated to be superior to imputation using conventional machine learning, and has a simple interpretation that characterizes the problems on which it will perform well. Later chapters contain an axiomatic validation of both of our new approaches, as well as techniques for mitigating their manipulability. The thesis concludes with a discussion of the applicability of its contributions, both for multiagent systems and for settings involving human elections. In all, we reveal an interesting connection between machine learning and computational social choice, and introduce a testbed which facilitates future research efforts on computational social choice for partial preferences, by allowing empirical comparisons between competing approaches to be conducted easily, accurately, and quickly. Perhaps most importantly, we offer an important and effective new direction for enabling group decision making when preferences are not completely specified, using imputation methods

The Maximum Likelihood Approach to Voting on Social Networks

Abstract — One view of voting is that voters have inherently different preferences – de gustibus non est disputandum – and that voting is merely a method for reaching a reasonable compromise solution. An alternative view is that some of the alternatives really are better in an objective sense, and by voting over the alternatives we hope to be more likely to reach the correct outcome. In this latter view, we can see the votes as noisy estimates of the truth. Specifying a probabilistic noise model gives us a natural “optimal ” voting rule for determining the outcome based on the votes, namely, the function that takes the votes as input and produces the outcome that maximizes the likelihood of these votes as output. We will first review some of the work on the maximum likelihood approach to voting. Most of this work supposes that, conditional on the correct outcome, votes are independent. In reality, however, voters are clearly influenced by the opinions of those close to them. How should we model the effects of the social network, and what does this imply for the maximum likelihood approach? We will first review an earlier result [1] that states that, under certain assumptions, the social network structure should not affect the voting rule. We then consider a new model under which this is not true, and prove that computing the probability of the votes given the correct outcome is #P-hard under this model. On the other hand, if the goal is to simultaneously also give a point estimate of the hidden variables in the model, then the optimization problem can be solved in polynomial time. I