Skip to main content

Anonymity-Proof Voting Rules

  • Conference paper
Internet and Network Economics (WINE 2008)

Part of the book series: Lecture Notes in Computer Science ((LNISA,volume 5385))

Included in the following conference series:

Abstract

A (randomized, anonymous) voting rule maps any multiset of total orders (aka. votes) over a fixed set of alternatives to a probability distribution over these alternatives. A voting rule f is false-name-proof if no voter ever benefits from casting more than one vote. It is anonymity-proof if it satisfies voluntary participation and it is false-name-proof. We show that the class of anonymity-proof neutral voting rules consists exactly of the rules of the following form. With some probability k f  ∈ [0,1], the rule chooses an alternative uniformly at random. With probability 1 − k f , the rule first draws a pair of alternatives uniformly at random. If every vote prefers the same alternative between the two (and there is at least one vote), then the rule chooses that alternative. Otherwise, the rule flips a fair coin to decide between the two alternatives. We also show how the characterization changes if group strategy-proofness is added as a requirement.

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 84.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 109.99
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

  • Barbera, S.: Majority and positional voting in a probabilistic framework. The Review of Economic Studies 46(2), 379–389 (1979)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Barbera, S.: A note on group strategy-proof decision schemes. Econometrica 47, 637–640 (1979)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Black, D.: On the rationale of group decision-making. Journal of Political Economy 56(1), 23–34 (1948)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Clarke, E.H.: Multipart pricing of public goods. Public Choice 11, 17–33 (1971)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Conitzer, V.: Limited verification of identities to induce false-name-proofness. TARK, 102–111 (2007)

    Google Scholar 

  • Conitzer, V.: Using a memory test to limit a user to one account. AMEC (2008)

    Google Scholar 

  • Gibbard, A.: Manipulation of voting schemes: a general result. Econometrica 41, 587–602 (1973)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Gibbard, A.: Manipulation of schemes that mix voting with chance. Econometrica 45, 665–681 (1977)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Green, J., Laffont, J.-J.: Characterization of satisfactory mechanisms for the revelation of preferences for public goods. Econometrica 45, 427–438 (1977)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Groves, T.: Incentives in teams. Econometrica 41, 617–631 (1973)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Myerson, R.: Incentive compatibility and the bargaining problem. Econometrica 41(1) (1979)

    Google Scholar 

  • Myerson, R.: Optimal auction design. Mathematics of Operations Research 6, 58–73 (1981)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Rastegari, B., Condon, A., Leyton-Brown, K.: Revenue monotonicity in combinatorial auctions. AAAI, 122–127 (2007)

    Google Scholar 

  • Satterthwaite, M.: Strategy-proofness and Arrow’s conditions: Existence and correspondence theorems for voting procedures and social welfare functions. Journal of Economic Theory 10, 187–217 (1975)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Vickrey, W.: Counterspeculation, auctions, and competitive sealed tenders. Journal of Finance 16, 8–37 (1961)

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Wagman, L., Conitzer, V.: Optimal false-name-proof voting rules with costly voting. AAAI, 190–195 (2008)

    Google Scholar 

  • Yokoo, M., Sakurai, Y., Matsubara, S.: Robust combinatorial auction protocol against false-name bids. Artificial Intelligence 130(2), 167–181 (2001)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Yokoo, M., Sakurai, Y., Matsubara, S.: The effect of false-name bids in combinatorial auctions: New fraud in Internet auctions. Games and Economic Behavior 46(1), 174–188 (2004)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Yokoo, M., Matsutani, T., Iwasaki, A.: False-name-proof combinatorial auction protocol: Groves mechanism with submodular approximation. In: AAMAS, pp. 1135–1142 (2006)

    Google Scholar 

  • Yokoo, M.: The characterization of strategy/false-name proof combinatorial auction protocols: Price-oriented, rationing-free protocol. IJCAI, 733–742 (2003)

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2008 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg

About this paper

Cite this paper

Conitzer, V. (2008). Anonymity-Proof Voting Rules. In: Papadimitriou, C., Zhang, S. (eds) Internet and Network Economics. WINE 2008. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol 5385. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-92185-1_36

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-92185-1_36

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-540-92184-4

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-540-92185-1

  • eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics