Skip to main content

New Results on Equilibria in Strategic Candidacy

  • Conference paper
Algorithmic Game Theory (SAGT 2013)

Part of the book series: Lecture Notes in Computer Science ((LNISA,volume 8146))

Included in the following conference series:

Abstract

We consider a voting setting where candidates have preferences about the outcome of the election and are free to join or leave the election. The corresponding candidacy game, where candidates choose strategically to participate or not, has been studied in very few papers, mainly by Dutta et al. [5,6], who showed that no non-dictatorial voting procedure satisfying unanimity is candidacy-strategyproof, or equivalently, is such that the joint action where all candidates enter the election is always a pure strategy Nash equilibrium. They also showed that for voting trees, there are candidacy games with no pure strategy equilibria. However, no results were known about other voting rules. Here we prove several such results. Some are positive (a pure strategy Nash equilibrium is guaranteed for Copeland and the uncovered set, whichever is the number of candidates, and for all Condorcet-consistent rules, for 4 candidates). Some are negative, namely for plurality and maximin.

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 49.99
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. Aumann, R.: Acceptable points in general cooperative n-person games. In: Contributions to the Theory of Games IV. Annals of Mathematics Study, vol. 40, pp. 287–324 (1959)

    Google Scholar 

  2. Bartholdi, J., Tovey, C., Trick, M.: How hard is it to control an election? Social Choice and Welfare 16(8-9), 27–40 (1992)

    MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  3. Chevaleyre, Y., Lang, J., Maudet, N., Monnot, J., Xia, L.: New candidates welcome! possible winners with respect to the addition of new candidates. Mathematical Social Sciences 64(1), 74–88 (2012)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  4. Debord, B.: Caractérisation des matrices de préférences nettes et méthodes d’agrégation associées. Mathematiques et Sciences Humaines 97, 5–17 (1987)

    MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  5. Dutta, B., Breton, M.L., Jackson, M.O.: Strategic candidacy and voting procedures. Econometrica 69, 1013–1037 (2001)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  6. Dutta, B., Breton, M.L., Jackson, M.O.: Voting by successive elimination and strategic candidacy in committees. Journal of Economic Theory 103, 190–218 (2002)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  7. Ehlers, L., Weymark, J.A.: Candidate stability and nonbinary social choice. Economic Theory 22(2), 233–243 (2003)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  8. Elkind, E., Faliszewski, P., Slinko, A.M.: Cloning in elections: Finding the possible winners. J. Artif. Intell. Res (JAIR) 42, 529–573 (2011)

    MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  9. Eraslan, H., McLennan, A.: Strategic candidacy for multivalued voting procedures. Journal of Economic Theory 117(1), 29–54 (2004)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  10. Faliszewski, P., Hemaspaandra, E., Hemaspaandra, L.: Multimode control attacks on elections. JAIR 40, 305–351 (2011)

    MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  11. 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 

  12. Lu, T., Boutilier, C.: The unavailable candidate model: a decision-theoretic view of social choice. In: ACM Conference on Electronic Commerce 2010, pp. 263–274 (2010)

    Google Scholar 

  13. Nash, J.: Non-cooperative games. Annals of Mathematics 54(2), 286–295 (1951)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  14. Rodriguez-Alvarez, C.: Candidate stability and probabilistic voting procedures. Economic Theory 27(3), 657–677 (2006)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  15. Rodriguez-Alvarez, C.: Candidate stability and voting correspondences. Social Choice and Welfare 27(3), 545–570 (2006)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  16. Saari, D.: A dictionary of voting paradoxes. Journal of Economic Theory 48 (1989)

    Google Scholar 

  17. Saari, D.: Election results and a partial ordering for positional ordering. In: Schofield, N.J. (ed.) Collective Decision-Making: Social Choice and Political Economy, pp. 93–110. Kluwer (1996)

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2013 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg

About this paper

Cite this paper

Lang, J., Maudet, N., Polukarov, M. (2013). New Results on Equilibria in Strategic Candidacy. In: Vöcking, B. (eds) Algorithmic Game Theory. SAGT 2013. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol 8146. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-41392-6_2

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-41392-6_2

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-642-41391-9

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-642-41392-6

  • eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics