Skip to main content

Control Complexity in Bucklin, Fallback, and Plurality Voting: An Experimental Approach

  • Conference paper
Experimental Algorithms (SEA 2012)

Part of the book series: Lecture Notes in Computer Science ((LNTCS,volume 7276))

Included in the following conference series:

Abstract

Walsh [23,22], Davies et al. [9], and Narodytska et al. [20] studied various voting systems empirically and showed that they can often be manipulated effectively, despite their manipulation problems being NP-hard. Such an experimental approach is sorely missing for NP-hard control problems, where control refers to attempts to tamper with the outcome of elections by adding/delet-ing/partitioning either voters or candidates. We experimentally tackle NP-hard control problems for Bucklin and fallback voting, which among natural voting systems with efficient winner determination are the systems currently known to display the broadest resistance to control in terms of NP-hardness [12,11]. We also investigate control resistance experimentally for plurality voting, one of the first voting systems analyzed with respect to electoral control [1,18].

Our findings indicate that NP-hard control problems can often be solved effectively in practice. Moreover, our experiments allow a more fine-grained analysis and comparison—across various control scenarios, vote distribution models, and voting systems—than merely stating NP-hardness for all these control problems.

This work was supported in part by DFG grants RO 1202/15-1 and RO 1202/12-1 (within the EUROCORES programme LogICCC of the ESF), SFF grant “Cooperative Normsetting” of HHU Düsseldorf, and a DAAD grant for a PPP project in the PROCOPE programme.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 39.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 54.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Bartholdi III, J., Tovey, C., Trick, M.: How hard is it to control an election? Mathematical and Computer Modelling 16(8/9), 27–40 (1992)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  2. Baumeister, D., Erdélyi, G., Hemaspaandra, E., Hemaspaandra, L., Rothe, J.: Computational aspects of approval voting. In: Laslier, J., Sanver, R. (eds.) Handbook on Approval Voting, ch.10, pp. 199–251. Springer (2010)

    Google Scholar 

  3. Berg, S.: Paradox of voting under an urn model: The effect of homogeneity. Public Choice 47(2), 377–387 (1985)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Brams, S., Fishburn, P.: Approval Voting. Birkhäuser (1983)

    Google Scholar 

  5. Brams, S., Sanver, R.: Voting systems that combine approval and preference. In: Brams, S., Gehrlein, W., Roberts, F. (eds.) The Mathematics of Preference, Choice, and Order: Essays in Honor of Peter C. Fishburn, pp. 215–237. Springer (2009)

    Google Scholar 

  6. Cheeseman, P., Kanefsky, B., Taylor, W.: Where the really hard problems are. In: Proc. IJCAI 1991, pp. 331–337. Morgan Kaufmann (1991)

    Google Scholar 

  7. Coleman, T., Teague, V.: On the complexity of manipulating elections. In: Proc. CATS 2007., vol. 65, pp. 25–33 (2007)

    Google Scholar 

  8. Conitzer, V., Sandholm, T., Lang, J.: When are elections with few candidates hard to manipulate? Journal of the ACM 54(3), Article 14 (2007)

    Google Scholar 

  9. Davies, J., Katsirelos, G., Narodytska, N., Walsh, T.: Complexity of and algorithms for Borda manipulation. In: Proc. AAAI 2011, pp. 657–662. AAAI Press (August 2011)

    Google Scholar 

  10. Erdélyi, G., Fellows, M.: Parameterized control complexity in Bucklin voting and in fallback voting. In: Proc. COMSOC 2010, pp. 163–174. Universität Düsseldorf (2010)

    Google Scholar 

  11. Erdélyi, G., Piras, L., Rothe, J.: The complexity of voter partition in Bucklin and fallback voting: Solving three open problems. In: Proc. AAMAS 2011, pp. 837–844. IFAAMAS (2011)

    Google Scholar 

  12. Erdélyi, G., Rothe, J.: Control complexity in fallback voting. In: Proc. CATS 2010. CRPIT Series, vol. 32(8), pp. 39–48. Australian Computer Society (2010)

    Google Scholar 

  13. Faliszewski, P., Hemaspaandra, E., Hemaspaandra, L.: Using complexity to protect elections. Commun. ACM 53(11), 74–82 (2010)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Faliszewski, P., Hemaspaandra, E., Hemaspaandra, L., Rothe, J.: A richer understanding of the complexity of election systems. In: Ravi, S., Shukla, S. (eds.) Fundamental Problems in Computing: Essays in Honor of Professor Daniel J., ch.14, pp. 375–406. Springer (2009)

    Google Scholar 

  15. Faliszewski, P., Hemaspaandra, E., Hemaspaandra, L., Rothe, J.: The shield that never was: Societies with single-peaked preferences are more open to manipulation and control. Information and Computation 209(2), 89–107 (2011)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  16. Faliszewski, P., Procaccia, A.: AI’s war on manipulation: Are we winning? AI Magazine 31(4), 53–64 (2010)

    Google Scholar 

  17. Gent, I., Walsh, T.: Phase transitions from real computational problems. In: Proc. ISAI 1995, pp. 356–364 (1995)

    Google Scholar 

  18. Hemaspaandra, E., Hemaspaandra, L., Rothe, J.: Anyone but him: The complexity of precluding an alternative. Artificial Intelligence 171(5-6), 255–285 (2007)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  19. Hoag, C., Hallett, G.: Proportional Representation. Macmillan (1926)

    Google Scholar 

  20. Narodytska, N., Walsh, T., Xia, L.: Manipulation of Nanson’s and Baldwin’s rules. In: Proc. AAAI 2011, pp. 713–718. AAAI Press (August 2011)

    Google Scholar 

  21. Rothe, J., Schend, L.: Typical-case challenges to complexity shields that are supposed to protect elections against manipulation and control: A survey. In: Website Proceedings of the Special Session on Computational Social Choice at the 12th International Symposium on Artificial Intelligence and Mathematics (2012)

    Google Scholar 

  22. Walsh, T.: Where are the really hard manipulation problems? The phase transition in manipulating the veto rule. In: Proc. IJCAI 2009, pp. 324–329. IJCAI (2009)

    Google Scholar 

  23. Walsh, T.: An empirical study of the manipulability of single transferable voting. In: Proc. ECAI 2010, pp. 257–262. IOS Press (2010)

    Google Scholar 

  24. Zuckerman, M., Procaccia, A., Rosenschein, J.: Algorithms for the coalitional manipulation problem. Artificial Intelligence 173(2), 392–412 (2009)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2012 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg

About this paper

Cite this paper

Rothe, J., Schend, L. (2012). Control Complexity in Bucklin, Fallback, and Plurality Voting: An Experimental Approach. In: Klasing, R. (eds) Experimental Algorithms. SEA 2012. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol 7276. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-30850-5_31

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-30850-5_31

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-642-30849-9

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-642-30850-5

  • eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics