How to Fix an Election
Manipulating election results may not be as hard as previously thought.
kfc 09/21/2009
- 4 Comments
In recent years, computer scientists have begun an aggressive program to study elections, using both theoretical models and agent-based simulations. Their motivation is not just to ensure the proper functioning of a democratic society but also to investigate the increasingly important role of elections in areas such as collaborative decisionmaking, artificial intelligence, and recommendation systems on websites.
So the question of how to fix an election is of some concern. However, one recent key insight is that it is possible to design election systems that make this kind of rigging NP-hard.
(By fixing, computer scientists mean either the blatant adding and deleting of votes/candidates or a more subtle strategy in which groups of voters change their allegiances to achieve a specific goal.)
This result gives succor to those who worry that elections can easily be fixed. What it means is that rigging is so complex that it is computationally impractical to achieve. It's as if the election has a built-in shield that prevents fixing.
Now Piotr Faliszewski from the AGH University of Science and Technology in Poland and a few buddies say they have found a special case in which this protection vanishes. The special case is in elections where the vote is dominated by a single issue such as war or economics. This is known as a single-peakedness.
And the worry is that it may be a common feature of human elections. In fact, many political institutions seem designed to achieve single-peakedness and so may be more vulnerable to manipulation than we imagined.
But it by no means guarantees it. One potential weakness of Faliszewski and co's approach is that, while many human elections are dominated by a single issue such as defense or taxes, there are always a few extreme individuals whose vote is determined by some other issue, such as the sex of the candidates or the color of their skin.
It may be that these extreme individuals protect the veracity of elections by ensuring that the single-peak weakness does not apply.
Faliszewski and co are working on their idea to see if it can be extended to elections that are almost single-peaked. Until then, we can but wonder that we may end up relying on extremists to make our elections more robust.
Ref: http://arxiv.org/abs/0909.3257: The Shield that Never Was: Societies with Single-Peaked Preferences are More Open to Manipulation and Control
On Twitter
Become a Fan on Facebook
Subscribe to the Feed
ZephirAWT
299 Comments
Danger of positive approach
Main problem is, election system doesn't enable voters to express their negative opinion. Negative voices simply don't count here.
This is a general property of contemporary voting systems, which enable only positive votes, which leads to high degree of populism in side of politicians and ignorance and lack of interests about negative aspects of politics on the side of publicity. Even morally controversial politicians may become successful in this system, if they're is sufficiently active in another areas, in self promotion of personality cult in particular. I believe, this MAY be one of reasons of society problems with its own political representations: voters simply have no veto privilege - they can be only partly responsible. In natural evolution such unbalanced approach to fitness function would suffer consequences, because it violates the equilibrium of supply and demand.
http://aetherwavetheory.blogspot.com/2009/02/danger-of-possitive-approach.html
Reply
durs
44 Comments
Re: Danger of positive approach
The ancient Greeks employed "ostracism" in their elections.
The most popular guy won the position and the least popular guy was booted out of town.
Reply