Papers for

election system designers

Papers whose findings have a practical use for this group, as judged from the abstract. Open a paper to read what it means in practice.

Complexity of predicting winners in plurality voting with abstentions

Subgame-Perfect Nash Equilibria of Plurality Voting with Abstention: a PSPACE-Completeness Result for Restricted Ballots

Abstract: We consider sequential Plurality elections in which each voter may abstain or vote for a single candidate. Each voter assigns utilities to all candidates; for each voter, this induces a (weak) order over the candidates. Ties are resolved uniformly at random, and voting has a small positive cost, so that a voter prefers to abstain when their vote cannot change the election outcome. We consider a variant of this model where, for each voter, we additionally specify a prefix of her ranking, so that she is only allowed to vote for a candidate from that prefix (or abstain). We prove that for this variant of the model, deciding whether a designated candidate is among the election winners in a subgame-perfect equilibrium of the associated extensive-form game is PSPACE-complete. This partially resolves an open problem from the work of Desmedt and Elkind [2010].

Mon 21 SeptComputer Science and Game Theory
The gist
This paper looks at a type of voting where people vote one after another and may choose not to vote at all. Each voter has a list of favorite candidates and can only vote for some of the top ones in their list or abstain. The authors study how hard it is to figure out whether a certain candidate can win if everyone votes strategically, thinking about how others will vote. They find that this problem is very complex and belongs to a class called PSPACE-complete, meaning it is generally tough to solve with a computer. This answers a question left open by earlier work on voting strategy.
Open 2609.24292v1

Voting methods balance candidate quality with fair group representation

Approval-Based Multiwinner Voting with Candidate Qualities

Abstract: We initiate the study of a new model of approval-based multiwinner voting in which each candidate carries an exogenous quality score, capturing, for instance, the reliability of the candidate or their relevance to the context of the selection. Quality scores break with the standard assumption of approval-based multiwinner voting that candidates are fully defined by the set of their supporters. We rethink what proportional representation means in the presence of quality scores. For this, we introduce a threshold-based and a value-based family of axioms, analyze their relationships, satisfiability, and computational complexity, and present rules that achieve the strongest jointly satisfiable combinations of our proportionality axioms. We then analyze the compatibility of proportionality with the natural goal of maximizing the summed quality of the selected candidates. While imposing standard proportionality notions can lead to an almost complete loss of quality, we show that under a new class of reciprocal axioms, which scale a group's entitlement by the quality of its commonly approved candidate(s), there always exist proportional committees retaining at least 3/4 of the optimal summed quality, and such committees can be computed by our voting rules at no additional computational cost.

Tue 8 SeptComputer Science and Game Theory
The gist
Choosing a group of winners often means picking popular candidates, but sometimes candidates also have different qualities. This paper studies how to select winners so that groups get fair representation while still picking high-quality candidates. The authors introduce new rules to balance these goals and show they can pick committees that keep much of the top quality without losing fairness. Their methods can find good groups efficiently, even when balancing these competing goals.
Open 2609.08830v1