DOCSLIB.ORG

2RS, See Two-Round System Accessibility, 4, 5, 26, 74, 76, 77

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
2RS, See Two-Round System Accessibility, 4, 5, 26, 74, 76, 77 Index 2RS, see Two-Round System Audit Trail, 8, 11, 12, 14, 27, 46, 58, 210, 211, 276, 327, 328, 330, 386, Accessibility, 4, 5, 26, 74, 76, 77, 151, 393 152, 181, 216, 241, 337, 341, Auditability, 4, 11, 27, 46, 313, 390 379, 387, 390, 391 Auditor, 7, 13, 67, 113, 122, 123, 125, Accountability, 7, 15, 58, 89, 100, 180, 127, 257–259, 266, 308, 319, 217, 300, 309, 313, 329, 338, 325, 369, 380, 398 342, 398 Australia, 54, 83, 84, 88, 89, 167, 169, AccuVote, 148, 151, 153 170, 187, 241, 313, 314, 335, AccuVote-OS, 151 336, 341 AccuVote-TS, 147, 148, 150, 151 AV, see Alternative Vote AccuVote-TSx, 147, 151 AV-net, see Anonymous Veto Network ACM, see Association for Computing AVC Advantage, 152 Machinery AVC Edge, 153, 154 Adder, 201 Advanced Voting Period, see Early Vot- Ballot Layout, see also Ballot Structure, ing 5, 60, 73, 391 Alternative Vote, 83 Ballot Secrecy, 146, 151, 160, 163, 179, Anonymous Veto Network, 346, 351, 244, 252, 260, 317 353–355 Ballot Structure, see also Ballot Layout, Aperio, 208, 210–212 80, 100 Approval Voting, 81, 91, 96, 99, 297, 298 BallotStation, 148, 149 Argentina, 54, 85, 156, 157 Bangladesh, 54 Armenia, 54 Barcelona, 72 Arrow’s Impossibility Theorem, 95, 96 Belgium, 54, 57, 59, 61, 68–70, 289, 357 Association for Computing Machinery, Benaloh Challenge, 288, 289, 301, 383 60, 204, 280 Bhutan, 54 Audiotegrity, 239, 241, 260, 263–266, Bingo Voting, 194, 195 277 Biometric, 71, 346 Black’s Method, 91 455 456 Index BlackBoxVoting, 148 Commission d’Accès aux Documents Block-Vote, 84, 85 Administratifs, 57 Boardroom Election, see also Board- Commitment Scheme, 194 room Voting, 200, 358 Complexity, 4, 5, 17, 22, 55, 159, 213– Boardroom Voting, see also Boardroom 215, 286, 331, 338, 348, 402 Election, 346, 354, 357, 375 Condorcet Criterion, 94 Bolivia, 54 Condorcet Method, 91, 92 Borda Count, 90, 91, 96, 99, 100 Condorcet Paradox, 95, 96 Brazil, 54, 59, 60, 74, 75, 85, 155, 156 Contingent Vote, 82, 98 Brennan Center for Justice, 74 Controlled Environment, 58, 75 Bug, 4, 6, 7, 69, 126–129, 146, 304, 308, Coombs’ Method, 84 371, 400 Council of Europe, 24–27, 39, 43–46, 64, Bulgaria, 54 69 Butterfly Ballot, 65, 74 Countermeasure, 110, 124, 125, 146, BV, see Block Vote 222, 226, 231, 233, 313, 328, 329, 331, 340, 401 CADA, see Commission d’Accès aux Cumulative Voting, 91, 99 Documents Administratifs Cyberwarfare, 146, 166 California, 151–153, 403 Czech Republic, 85 Cameroon, 85 Canada, 54, 81, 83, 254 D’Hondt Method, 86, 87, 102, 133 Carter Center, 25–27, 64 Danish Method, 102 Cast-as-Intended, 13, 58, 123, 177, 180, DC-net, see Dining Cryptographers net- 193–195, 220, 288, 290, 291, work 300, 303, 304, 309, 313, 314, Decryption Mix, 183, 202, 320–322 325, 329, 336, 337 Delegate, 55, 62, 101, 292, 304, 307, CESG Study, 111 308, 354, 357, 398 Chain Voting, 257, 333, 340, 401, 402 Diebold, 66, 147–153 Civic Activism, 54, 61, 64, 69, 77 Digital Gap, 67, 75 Civic Culture, 71, 72 Digital Signature, 12, 135–139, 185, 245, Civitas, 200, 201, 203, 225, 226 316, 328–330, 361, 362, 369, Classroom Voting, 200, 369, 371–376 388, 403 Closed-List, 85, 86, 100 Digivote, 68 Code Voting, 15, 194, 205, 206 Dining Cryptographers Network, 348– Coercion, 15, 27, 110, 123–125, 129, 351 140, 141, 146, 170, 178, 179, Dining Cryptographers Problem, 346– 181, 195, 201–204, 206, 207, 348, 353, 375 209, 212, 214, 216, 220, 221, Direct Recording Electronic, 5, 6, 8, 65, 226, 231, 232, 235, 236, 264, 68, 71, 74, 146–148, 151–158, 281, 283, 299, 334, 336, 362, 268, 318, 347, 359–363, 371, 365, 394, 401, 402, 404 379, 380, 384, 390, 391 Coercion-resistance, 110, 123, 179, 201– Direct Recording Electronic with in- 203, 206, 209, 281, 299 tegrity, 200, 346–375 Commercial off-the-shelf (COTS), 159, District Magnitude, 100 161, 256, 380, 387 Double-Ballot, 82 Index 457 DRE, see Direct Recording Electronic Evidence-Based Election, 4, 11, 13, 16 DRE-i, see Direct Recording Electronic EVM (Indian Voting Machine), 59, 158 with integrity Exhaustive Ballot, 82, 83 Droop Quota, 87–89, 102 Filibuster, 81 E-Counting, 70, 74 Fingerprint, see also Biometric, 71, 215, E2E, see End-to-End Verifiability 283, 284, 287, 288, 292 EAC, see Election Assistance Commis- Finland, 39, 54, 67, 68, 75, 215 sion Firmware, 148, 151, 154 Early Voting, 152, 380 First-Past-the-Post, 81, 82, 84, 85, 90, Ecuador, 54 98–102 EFFI, see Electronic Frontier Finland Flexible List Voting, 85 Egalitarian, 92, 93 Floating Receipt, 209 Election Assistance Commission, 65, 66, FPTP, see First-Past-the-Post 276 FRAKE (attack), 169, 170 Elections Systems and Software, 61, 152 France, 54, 55, 57, 61, 64, 82, 85, 86 Electoral Formula, 100 Frog Voting, 213 Electoral System, 19, 41, 49, 56, 75, 79– Functional Equivalence, 215 103, 106, 131, 187, 330 German Constitutional Court, 55, 57, 60 Electronic Ballot Marking (EBM), 8, 9, Germany, 54, 56, 58, 85, 90, 155, 177, 337, 338, 340, 380 195 Electronic Frontier Finland, 67 Gerrymandering, 101, 102 ElGamal (Cryptosystem), 294 Gibbard-Satterthwaite (Impossibility) The- ElGamal (Cryptosystem), 118, 227–229, orem, 96, 97 293, 294, 303, 317, 322, 323, 395, 397 HA, see Highest Average Method Eligibility Verifiability, 180, 314 Hacktivist, 146 End-to-End Verifiability, see also Indi- Hagenbach-Bischoff Quota, 87 vidual Verifiability and Uni- Hare Quota, 87, 102 versal Verifiability, 136, 141, Hare System, 84 181, 188, 205, 208, 213, 220, Hare’s Method, 84 242, 288, 299, 313, 314, 319, Hart InterCivic, 151, 152, 379, 381, 404 328, 335, 336, 346, 364 HAVA, see Help America Vote Act Equality, 75, 93, 95, 351 Helios, 15, 196, 200, 203, 204, 214, 215, ES3B, 154, 155 223, 227, 228, 267, 280–310, ES&S, see Elections Systems and Soft- 318, 334, 357–359, 380, 395 ware Help America Vote Act, 65, 66, 68, 177, Estonia, 15, 54, 56, 58, 131–133, 135, 379 142, 143, 165–167, 216 Helper Organization, 191, 193, 215 Estonian Voting System, 15, 131–143 Highest Average Method, 86, 87, 102 European Commission, 23–25 Homomorphic Encryption, 190, 196, European Parliament, 83, 85, 88, 131, 204, 224 133, 143 Hungary, 90 European Union, 135, 166 see EVEREST, 152 ICTE, Irish Citizens for Trustworthy E-Voting 458 Index ID management, 73 Japan, 54, 84, 90 IDEA, see International Institute for Java, 125, 126, 254, 303, 365, 370, 388 Democracy and Electoral As- JavaScript, 126 sistance Javascript, 126, 128, 167–170, 302–304, IFES, see International Foundation for 370 Electoral Systems JCJ, 200–203 IIA, see Independence of Irrelevant Al- Jites, 68 ternatives Illiteracy, 75 Kazakhstan, 54 Imperiali Method, 87, 102 Kiribati, 90 Imperiali Quota, 87, 102 Kleptography, 228, 229, 324 Impersonation, 56, 73, 203, 262 In-house Expertise, 57, 65–67, 73, 77 Largest Remainder Method, 86–88, 102 Incentive, 12, 101, 146, 236, 325 Lebanon, 84 Independence of Irrelevant Alternatives, Legal Framework (for E2E voting), 35, 94–96, 98, 99 40, 54, 68, 72, 74, 215–217 India, 49, 54, 59–61, 64, 74, 75, 81, 157– Limited Vote, 85 159, 195 List Voting, 85, 100 Individual Verifiability, 56–58, 180, 308, Flexible, see Flexible List Voting 366 Preferential, see Preferential (List Indra, 61, 71, 72 Voting) INE, see Instituto Nacional Electoral Lithuania, 90 Instant Run-Off Voting, 83, 84, 87, 88, Logjam Attack, 169, 170 91, 96, 98–100, 102, 206, 255– Louisiana, 152 257, 259, 267, 269, 273, 274, LR, see Largest Remainder Method 394 Luxembourg, 85 Instituto Nacional Electoral, 74 LV, see Limited Vote International Foundation for Electoral Majoritarian System, 100–103 Systems, 49, 64 Majority Criterion, 94, 98, 99 International Institute for Democracy Majority Judgement, 91 and Electoral Assistance, 54, Malapportionment, 101, 102 64 Malaysia, 81 Internet Voting, 27, 39, 56, 58, 61–63, Malta, 88 68, 71–76, 111, 112, 124, 125, MarkPledge, 192–194, 213 129, 131, 133, 136, 137, 142, May’s Theorem, 92, 93 143, 159–161, 163–168, 171, Mexico, 54, 74, 90 181, 194, 201, 217, 265, 268, Microcosm, 100, 101 280, 290, 299, 307, 336, 365 Misprint, 125, 221, 222 Ireland, 54, 61, 63, 64, 83, 88, 215 Mix-net / Mixnet, 305 Irish Citizens for Trustworthy E-Voting, Mix-net / Mixnet, 14–17, 136, 183–185, 63 188, 190, 193, 194, 197, 198, IRV, see Instant Run-Off Voting 202, 204, 205, 209, 224, 225, Italian attack, 336 229, 230, 301, 305, 307, 322, Italy, 85 324, 336, 347 iVote, 167–170 Index 459 Mixed Member Proportional System, 90, Office for Democratic Institutions and 100 Human Rights, 25, 54, 64, 142, Mixed System, 100, 102 143 MMP, see Mixed Member Proportional Oficina Nacional de Procesos Elec- System torales, 66, 67 MNTV, see Multiple Non-Transferable Ohio, 148, 152 Vote ONPE, see Oficina Nacional de Procesos Modified Sainte-Laguë Method, 87, 102 Electorales Mongolia, 54 Open List, 85, 285 Monotone, 93, 95, 96, 99 Open Source, 31, 111, 161, 276 Monotonicity, see Monotone Open Vote, 355, 357–360 Multiple Non-Transferable Vote, 84 Optical Scan, 4, 8–10, 21, 188, 189, 240, 247, 250, 267, 268, 273, 276, Namibia, 54 379 National Democratic Institute, 25, 64 Ordinateurs-de-vote, 61 National Institute of Standards and Tech- Organization for Security and Coopera- nology, 77, 214, 276, 366 tion in Europe, 23, 25–27, 64 Nauru, 90 Organization of American States, 25–27, NDA, see Non-Disclosure Agreement 67 NDI, see National Democratic Institute OSCE, see Organization for Security and Nearly Decisive, 93 Cooperation in Europe Nedap, 55, 56, 61–63, 154, 155 OVELAT, see Observatorio del Voto Netherlands, 21, 54, 55, 61–64, 85, 154, Electrónico en Latinoamérica 155, 254 Overseas Citizens, 61 Neutral, 93, 102, 271 New Jersey, 152 Paillier (Cryptosystem),
Load more

Recommended publications
  • A Treasury System for Cryptocurrencies: Enabling Better Collaborative Intelligence ⋆
    A Treasury System for Cryptocurrencies: Enabling Better Collaborative Intelligence ? Bingsheng Zhang1, Roman Oliynykov2, and Hamed Balogun3 1 Lancaster University, UK [email protected] 2 Input Output Hong Kong Ltd. [email protected] 3 Lancaster University, UK [email protected] Abstract. A treasury system is a community controlled and decentralized collaborative decision- making mechanism for sustainable funding of the blockchain development and maintenance. During each treasury period, project proposals are submitted, discussed, and voted for; top-ranked projects are funded from the treasury. The Dash governance system is a real-world example of such kind of systems. In this work, we, for the first time, provide a rigorous study of the treasury system. We modelled, designed, and implemented a provably secure treasury system that is compatible with most existing blockchain infrastructures, such as Bitcoin, Ethereum, etc. More specifically, the proposed treasury system supports liquid democracy/delegative voting for better collaborative intelligence. Namely, the stake holders can either vote directly on the proposed projects or delegate their votes to experts. Its core component is a distributed universally composable secure end-to-end verifiable voting protocol. The integrity of the treasury voting decisions is guaranteed even when all the voting committee members are corrupted. To further improve efficiency, we proposed the world's first honest verifier zero-knowledge proof for unit vector encryption with logarithmic size communication. This partial result may be of independent interest to other cryptographic protocols. A pilot system is implemented in Scala over the Scorex 2.0 framework, and its benchmark results indicate that the proposed system can support tens of thousands of treasury participants with high efficiency.
    [Show full text]
  • Electoral Systems Used Around the World
    Chapter 4 Electoral Systems Used around the World Siamak F. Shahandashti Newcastle University, UK CONTENTS 4.1 Introduction ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: 78 4.2 Some Solutions to Electing a Single Winner :::::::::::::::::::::::: 79 4.3 Some Solutions to Electing Multiple Winners ::::::::::::::::::::::: 82 4.4 Blending Systems Together :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: 87 4.5 Other Solutions :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: 88 4.6 Which Systems Are Good? ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: 90 4.6.1 A Theorist’s Point of View ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: 90 4.6.1.1 Majority Rules ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: 90 4.6.1.2 Bad News Begins :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: 91 4.6.1.3 Arrow’s Impossibility Theorem ::::::::::::::::: 93 4.6.1.4 Gibbard–Satterthwaite Impossibility Theorem ::: 94 4.6.1.5 Systems with Respect to Criteria :::::::::::::::: 95 4.6.2 A Practitioner’s Point of View ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: 97 Acknowledgment ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: 101 77 78 Real-World Electronic Voting: Design, Analysis and Deployment 4.1 Introduction An electoral system, or simply a voting method, defines the rules by which the choices or preferences of voters are collected, tallied, aggregated and collectively interpreted to obtain the results of an election [249, 489]. There are many electoral systems. A voter may be allowed to vote for one or multiple candidates, one or multiple predefined lists of candidates, or state their pref- erence among candidates or predefined lists of candidates. Accordingly, tallying may involve a simple count of the number of votes for each candidate or list, or a relatively more complex procedure of multiple rounds of counting and transferring ballots be- tween candidates or lists. Eventually, the outcome of the tallying and aggregation procedures is interpreted to determine which candidate wins which seat. Designing end-to-end verifiable e-voting schemes is challenging.
    [Show full text]
  • Game Theory and Democracy Homework Problems
    Game Theory and Democracy Homework Problems PAGE 82 Challenge Problem: Show that any voting model (such as the Unit Interval Model or the Unit Square Model) which has a point symmetry always has a Condorcet winner for every election, namely the candidate who is closest to the point of symmetry! PAGE 93 Exercise: Show that if there are not any cycles of any length in the preferences of the voters, then there must be a Condorcet winner. (Don’t worry about making your proof rigorous, just convince yourself of this fact, to the point you could clearly explain your ideas to someone else.) PAGE 105 Exercise: Prove that the strongest chain strength of a chain from Candidate Y to Candidate X is 3. (If you can convince a skeptical friend that it is true, then that is a proof.) Exercise: Prove that it is never necessary to use a candidate more than once to find a chain with the strongest chain strength between two candidates. Hint: Show that whenever there is a loop, like the one shown in red Y (7) Z (3) W (9) Y (7) Z (3) W (11) X, we can consider a shortened chain by simply deleting the red loop Y (7) Z (3) W (11) X which is at least as strong as the original loop. Exercises: Prove that all of the chains above are in fact strongest chains, as claimed. Hint: The next figure, which has all of the information of the margin of victory matrix, will be useful, and is the type of figure you may choose to draw for yourself for other elections, from time to time.
    [Show full text]
  • Electoral System Change in Europe Since 1945
    Electoral reform in Europe since 1945 Article Supplemental Material online supplement Renwick, A. (2011) Electoral reform in Europe since 1945. West European Politics, 34 (3). pp. 456-477. ISSN 1743-9655 doi: https://doi.org/10.1080/01402382.2011.555975 Available at http://centaur.reading.ac.uk/21318/ It is advisable to refer to the publisher’s version if you intend to cite from the work. See Guidance on citing . Published version at: http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/01402382.2011.555975 To link to this article DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01402382.2011.555975 Publisher: Routledge All outputs in CentAUR are protected by Intellectual Property Rights law, including copyright law. Copyright and IPR is retained by the creators or other copyright holders. Terms and conditions for use of this material are defined in the End User Agreement . www.reading.ac.uk/centaur CentAUR Central Archive at the University of Reading Reading’s research outputs online Electoral System Change in Europe since 1945 West European Politics 34:?, ??–?? Online Supplement: Details of Categorizations Used in and Sources Used For Tables This supplement provides additional details regarding the criteria for including and classifying cases of electoral system change and lists the principal sources used for each country. Contents Abbreviations 2 Criteria Used to Identify and Classify Cases 3 Sources Used to Identify and Classify Cases 16 1 Abbreviations MMM mixed-member majoritarian MMP mixed-member proportional PR proportional representation SMP single-member plurality STV single transferable vote 2 Criteria Used to Identify and Categorize Cases Countries Included The sample used for this article includes European countries since 1945.
    [Show full text]
  • Computational Perspectives on Democracy
    Computational Perspectives on Democracy Anson Kahng CMU-CS-21-126 August 2021 Computer Science Department School of Computer Science Carnegie Mellon University Pittsburgh, PA 15213 Thesis Committee: Ariel Procaccia (Chair) Chinmay Kulkarni Nihar Shah Vincent Conitzer (Duke University) David Pennock (Rutgers University) Submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy. Copyright c 2021 Anson Kahng This research was sponsored by the National Science Foundation under grant numbers IIS-1350598, CCF- 1525932, and IIS-1714140, the Department of Defense under grant number W911NF1320045, the Office of Naval Research under grant number N000141712428, and the JP Morgan Research grant. The views and conclusions contained in this document are those of the author and should not be interpreted as representing the official policies, either expressed or implied, of any sponsoring institution, the U.S. government or any other entity. Keywords: Computational Social Choice, Theoretical Computer Science, Artificial Intelligence For Grandpa and Harabeoji. iv Abstract Democracy is a natural approach to large-scale decision-making that allows people affected by a potential decision to provide input about the outcome. However, modern implementations of democracy are based on outdated infor- mation technology and must adapt to the changing technological landscape. This thesis explores the relationship between computer science and democracy, which is, crucially, a two-way street—just as principles from computer science can be used to analyze and design democratic paradigms, ideas from democracy can be used to solve hard problems in computer science. Question 1: What can computer science do for democracy? To explore this first question, we examine the theoretical foundations of three democratic paradigms: liquid democracy, participatory budgeting, and multiwinner elections.
    [Show full text]
  • Electoral Rules and Democratic Electoral Rules, and Governance Democratic Governance Edited by Mala Htun and G
    Report of the Political Science, Task Force on Electoral Rules and Democratic Electoral Rules, and Governance Democratic Governance Edited by Mala Htun and G. Bingham Powell, Jr. AMERICAN POLITICAL SCIENCE AssOCIATION n TasK FORCE REPORT, SEPTEMBER 2013 Political Science, Electoral Rules, and Democratic Governance Report of the Task Force on Electoral Rules and Democratic Governance Edited by Mala Htun and G. Bingham Powell, Jr. SEPTEMBER 2013 AMERICAN POLITICAL SCIENCE AssOCIATION 1527 New Hampshire Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20036-1206 Copyright © 2013 by the American Political Science Association. All rights reserved. ISBN: 978-1-878147-41-7 Task Force on Electoral Rules and Democratic Governance Task Force Members Mala Htun, University of New Mexico, Chair G. Bingham Powell, Jr., University of Rochester; President, APSA, 2011–12 John Carey, Dartmouth College Karen E. Ferree, University of California, San Diego Simon Hix, London School of Economics Mona Lena Krook, Rutgers University Robert G. Moser, University of Texas, Austin Shaheen Mozaffar, Bridgewater State University Andrew Rehfeld, Washington University in St. Louis Andrew Reynolds, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill Ethan Scheiner, University of California, Davis Melissa Schwartzberg, Columbia University Matthew S. Shugart, University of California, Davis ii American Political Science Assocation Table of Contents TASK FORCE MEMBERS ............................................................................................................................. ii LIST OF
    [Show full text]
  • An Optimal Single-Winner Preferential Voting System Based on Game Theory∗
    An Optimal Single-Winner Preferential Voting System Based on Game Theory∗ Ronald L. Rivest and Emily Shen Abstract • The election winner is determined by a random- ized method, based for example on the use of We present an optimal single-winner preferential vot- ten-sided dice, that picks outcome x with prob- ing system, called the \GT method" because of its in- ability p∗(x). If there is a Condorcet winner x, teresting use of symmetric two-person zero-sum game then p∗(x) = 1, and no dice are needed. We theory to determine the winner. Game theory is not also briefly discuss a deterministic variant of GT, used to describe voting as a multi-player game be- which we call GTD. tween voters, but rather to define when one voting system is better than another one. The cast ballots The GT system, essentially by definition, is opti- determine the payoff matrix, and optimal play corre- mal: no other voting system can produce election sponds to picking winners optimally. outcomes that are liked better by the voters, on the The GT method is quite simple and elegant, and average, than those of the GT system. We also look works as follows: at whether the GT system has several standard prop- erties, such as monotonicity, consistency, etc. • Voters cast ballots listing their rank-order pref- The GT system is not only theoretically interest- erences of the alternatives. ing and optimal, but simple to use in practice; it is probably easier to implement than, say, IRV. We feel • The margin matrix M is computed so that for that it can be recommended for practical use.
    [Show full text]
  • Selecting the Runoff Pair
    Selecting the runoff pair James Green-Armytage New Jersey State Treasury Trenton, NJ 08625 [email protected] T. Nicolaus Tideman Department of Economics, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University Blacksburg, VA 24061 [email protected] This version: May 9, 2019 Accepted for publication in Public Choice on May 27, 2019 Abstract: Although two-round voting procedures are common, the theoretical voting literature rarely discusses any such rules beyond the traditional plurality runoff rule. Therefore, using four criteria in conjunction with two data-generating processes, we define and evaluate nine “runoff pair selection rules” that comprise two rounds of voting, two candidates in the second round, and a single final winner. The four criteria are: social utility from the expected runoff winner (UEW), social utility from the expected runoff loser (UEL), representativeness of the runoff pair (Rep), and resistance to strategy (RS). We examine three rules from each of three categories: plurality rules, utilitarian rules and Condorcet rules. We find that the utilitarian rules provide relatively high UEW and UEL, but low Rep and RS. Conversely, the plurality rules provide high Rep and RS, but low UEW and UEL. Finally, the Condorcet rules provide high UEW, high RS, and a combination of UEL and Rep that depends which Condorcet rule is used. JEL Classification Codes: D71, D72 Keywords: Runoff election, two-round system, Condorcet, Hare, Borda, approval voting, single transferable vote, CPO-STV. We are grateful to those who commented on an earlier draft of this paper at the 2018 Public Choice Society conference. 2 1. Introduction Voting theory is concerned primarily with evaluating rules for choosing a single winner, based on a single round of voting.
    [Show full text]
  • Contextual Determinants of Electoral System Choice
    ÅA Lundell: Krister Why have countries in different parts of the world preferred different electoral systems? Does context matter when countries choose electoral systems? Specifically, which contextual factors Krister Lundell are decisive? In the present thesis, Krister Lundell explores these Contextual Determinants of Electoral System Choice of Electoral System Determinants Contextual questions from three theoretical perspectives: a rational, a cultural and historical, and an institutional perspective. Contextual Determinants of The results show that although some institutional choices may be influenced by other particular institutions, the overall Electoral System Choice constitutional framework does not determine the choice of electoral systems. The rational perspective also provides a rather A Macro-Comparative Study 1945–2003 weak explanatory model. However, party system transformation from authoritarian one-party rule to competitive politics often results in a replacement of majoritarian systems with proportional or mixed electoral systems. BALLOT Name X The impact of the cultural and historical setting is Name X BALLOT overwhelming. Electoral system choice is to a great extent a Name X Name X consequence of various processes of diffusion, particularly British Name X Name X colonialism and regional contacts. Specific temporal trends are also discernible – the popularity of mixed systems in recent times is a case in point. BALLOT Åbo Akademi University Press BALLOT ISBN 951-765-298-4 Party X Party X Party X Party X Party X Party X 2005 Krister Lundell Born 1972 in Hanko, Finland Master of Science 1998 Licentiate in Political Science 2000 Doctoral candidate at the National Graduate School for Political Science and International Relations (VAKAVA) since 2003 Cover: Tove Ahlbäck Åbo Akademi University Press Biskopsgatan 13, FIN-20500 ÅBO, Finland Tel.
    [Show full text]
  • Chapter 3 Voting Systems
    Chapter 3 Voting Systems 3.1 Introduction We rank everything. We rank movies, bands, songs, racing cars, politicians, professors, sports teams, the plays of the day. We want to know “who’s number one?” and who isn't. As a lo- cal sports writer put it, “Rankings don't mean anything. Coaches continually stress that fact. They're right, of course, but nobody listens. You know why, don't you? People love polls. They absolutely love ’em” (Woodling, December 24, 2004, p. 3C). Some rankings are just for fun, but people at the top sometimes stand to make a lot of money. A study of films released in the late 1970s and 1980s found that, if a film is one of the 5 finalists for the Best Picture Oscar at the Academy Awards, the publicity generated (on average) generates about $5.5 mil- lion in additional box office revenue. Winners make, on average, $14.7 million in additional revenue (Nelson et al., 2001). In today's inflated dollars, the figures would no doubt be higher. Actors and directors who are nominated (and who win) should expect to reap rewards as well, since the producers of new films are eager to hire Oscar-winners. This chapter is about the procedures that are used to decide who wins and who loses. De- veloping a ranking can be a tricky business. Political scientists have, for centuries, wrestled with the problem of collecting votes and moulding an overall ranking. To the surprise of un- 1 CHAPTER 3. VOTING SYSTEMS 2 dergraduate students in both mathematics and political science, mathematical concepts are at the forefront in the political analysis of voting procedures.
    [Show full text]
  • Math in Society
    Math in Society Edition 1.1 Revision 3 Contents Voting Theory . 1 David Lippman Weighted Voting . 19 David Lippman Fair Division . 31 David Lippman Graph Theory . 49 David Lippman Scheduling . 79 David Lippman Growth Models . 95 David Lippman Finance . 111 David Lippman Statistics . 131 David Lippman, Jeff Eldridge, onlinestatbook.com Describing Data . 143 David Lippman, Jeff Eldridge, onlinestatbook.com Historical Counting Systems . 167 Lawrence Morales Solutions to Selected Exercises . 201 David Lippman Pierce College Ft Steilacoom Copyright © 2010 David Lippman This book was edited by David Lippman, Pierce College Ft Steilacoom Development of this book was supported, in part, by the Transition Math Project Statistics and Describing Data contain portions derived from works by: Jeff Eldridge, Edmonds Community College (used under CC-BY-SA license) www.onlinestatbook.com (used under public domain declaration) Historical Counting Systems derived from work by: Lawrence Morales, Seattle Central Community College (used under CC-BY-SA license) Front cover photo: Jan Tik, http://www.flickr.com/photos/jantik/, CC-BY 2.0 This text is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 United States License. To view a copy of this license, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/us/ or send a letter to Creative Commons, 171 Second Street, Suite 300, San Francisco, California, 94105, USA. You are free: to Share — to copy, distribute, display, and perform the work to Remix — to make derivative works Under the following conditions: Attribution. You must attribute the work in the manner specified by the author or licensor (but not in any way that suggests that they endorse you or your use of the work).
    [Show full text]
  • How to Enhance Democracy?
    What is democracy? Towards a global democracy Democratic allocation of money Original voting systems E-democracy References How to enhance democracy? Adrien Fabre Paris School of Economics 11/2015 Adrien Fabre How to enhance democracy? What is democracy? Towards a global democracy Democratic allocation of money Original voting systems E-democracy References Contents 1 What is democracy? 2 Towards a global democracy 3 Democratic allocation of money 4 Original voting systems 5 E-democracy Adrien Fabre How to enhance democracy? What is democracy? Towards a global democracy Democratic allocation of money Original voting systems E-democracy References Denitions Democracy is a political regime such that : - the necessary conditions for well-being are insured for all - each person has the same power of decision on issues that matter for them, where the necessary conditions for well-being are the ability to have access to: - drinkable water, food, health-care - a healthy environment, security, housing - attention, an education, information Adrien Fabre How to enhance democracy? What is democracy? Towards a global democracy Subsidiarity Democratic allocation of money Some insights for a global governance Original voting systems What could a global governance enact? E-democracy References Denition Subsidiarity is the idea that a central authority should have a subsidiary function, performing only those tasks which cannot be performed eectively at a more immediate or local level. Subsidiarity principle reveals us that some stakes must be decided at the international scale, notably: ght and adaptation to the climate change regulation of nancial markets and the monetary system allocation of non renewable resources ght of poverty Adrien Fabre How to enhance democracy? What is democracy? Towards a global democracy Subsidiarity Democratic allocation of money Some insights for a global governance Original voting systems What could a global governance enact? E-democracy References A global governance should be inclusive, i.e.
    [Show full text]