Incentivising Participation in Liquid Democracy with Breadth-First Delegation∗

Grammateia Kotsialou1 , Luke Riley2 1Department of Political Economy, King’s College London, UK 2Department of Informatics, King’s College London, UK {grammateia.kotsialou, luke.riley}@kcl.ac.uk.

Abstract borough and the Italian cities Turino and San Dona di Piave are working on integrating liquid democracy for community Liquid democracy allows members of an electorate engagement processes (Boella et al. 2018). In the technol- to either directly vote over alternatives, or delegate ogy domain, the online platform LiquidFeedback uses a liq- their voting rights to someone they trust. Most uid democracy system where a user selects a single guru for of the liquid democracy literature and implemen- different topics (Behrens et al. 2014; Kling et al. 2015). An- tations allow each voter to nominate only one del- other prominent online example is GoogleVotes (Hardt and egate per election. However, if that delegate ab- Lopes 2015), where each user wishing to delegate can select stains, the voting rights assigned to her are left un- a ranking over other voters. used. To minimise the number of unused delega- Regardless of the increasing interest in liquid democracy, tions, it has been suggested that each voter should there exists outstanding theoretical issues. This work focuses declare a personal ranking over voters she trusts. on liquid democracy systems where each individual wishing In this paper, we show that even if personal rank- to delegate can select a ranking over other voters. In such ings over voters are declared, the standard delega- systems, given the common interpretation that delegations of tion method of liquid democracy remains problem- voting rights are multi-step and transitive1, we observe that: atic. More specifically, we show that when per- searching for a guru follows a depth-first search in a graph sonal rankings over voters are declared, it could that illustrates all delegation preferences within an electorate, be undesirable to receive delegated voting rights, e.g. nodes represent the voters and directed edges the dele- which is contrary to what liquid democracy fun- gation choices for each voter. For this reason, we name this damentally relies on. To solve this issue, we pro- standard approach of delegating voting rights as depth-first pose a new method to delegate voting rights in an delegation. Despite its common acceptance, we came across election, called breadth-first delegation. Addition- an important disadvantage for this rule. We show that when ally, the proposed method prioritises assigning vot- depth-first delegation is used, it could be undesirable to re- ing rights to individuals closely connected to the ceive the voting rights of someone else. At this point, we em- voters who delegate. phasize that disincentivising voters to participate as gurus is in contrast to the ideology of liquid democracy. Motivated by 1 Introduction this, we propose a new rule for delegating voting rights, the Liquid democracy is a middle ground between direct and rep- breadth-first delegation, which guarantees that casting voters resentative democracy, as it allows each member of the elec- (those who do not delegate or abstain) weakly prefer to re- torate to directly vote on a topic, or temporarily choose a rep- ceive delegated voting rights, i.e. to participate as a guru. resentative by delegating her voting rights to another voter. We outline this paper as follows: Section 1 discusses the Therefore individuals who are either apathetic for an election, latest applied and theoretical developments in liquid democ- arXiv:1811.03710v2 [econ.TH] 25 Feb 2019 or trust the knowledge of another voter more than their own, racy and gives our model’s preliminaries. In Sections 2 & 3, can still have an impact on the election result (through dele- we define delegation graphs, delegation rules and two types gating). An individual who casts a vote for themselves and of participation. Section 4 formally introduces a new delega- for others is known as a guru (Christoff and Grossi 2017). tion rule while Section 5 compares this rule with the standard Liquid democracy has recently started gaining attention in a one. Finally, Section 6 concludes this work. few domains which we discuss to show an overview of the general societal interest. In the political domain, local parties 1.1 Related work such as the Pirate Party in Germany, Demoex in Sweden, the There currently exists a lack of theoretical analysis on liquid Net Party in Argentina and Partido de Internet in Spain have democracy. However, we summarise the main differences of been experimenting with liquid democracy implementations. our work to the main undertaking so far. Additionally, the local governments of the London Southwark 1If a voter i delegates to a voter j, then i transfers to j the voting ∗This work was supported by the EPSRC grant EP/P031811/1. rights of herself and all the others that had been delegated to i. As outlined by Brill (2018), one of the main ongoing issues to identify ranking positions e.g. for any i ∈ Vd, her m-th V in liquid democracy is how to handle personal rankings over preferred voter is denoted by i,m. voters. His work discusses possible solutions around this is- W Consider a binary relation on a set W given by i . Then sue without giving a formalised model, which this paper does. W i is: (a) complete iff for every pair x, y ∈ W either For two election alternatives and a ground truth on which the W W x i y or y i x holds, (b) antisymmetric iff for every correct one is, Kahng et al. (2018) find that: (a) there is no W W pair x, y ∈ W , if x i y then y i x does not hold, and decentralised liquid democracy delegation rule that is guar- W W anteed to outperform direct democracy and (b) there is a cen- (c) transitive iff for all x, y, z ∈ W , if x i y and y i z, W tralised liquid democracy delegation rule that is guaranteed to then x i z. Both preference relations over alternatives and outperform direct democracy as long as voters are not com- preference relations over voters are antisymmetric and transi- pletely misinformed or perfectly informed about the ground tive but not complete (we do not enforce voters to rank every truth. In comparison, our model can be used in a wider vari- other member of the electorate as we consider this an unreal- ety of elections, as it allows for multiple alternatives and no istic scenario for large electorates). A V ground truth. Additionally our delegation rules can be used in The set of all possible preference relations i and i , a central or decentralised manner, thus the negative result (a) for any i ∈ V, are denoted by RA and RV , respectively. does not apply to our paper. The work of Christoff and Grossi A preference profile over alternatives is a function P A : A (2017) focuses on the existence of delegation cycles and in- E(V) → 2R , where P A(N) returns a set of preference rela- consistencies that can occur when there are several binary is- tions over alternatives (maximum one for each voter in N). sues to be voted on with a different guru assigned for each For example, given an electorate N = {i, j, k}, a prefer- A A A issue. In comparison, we avoid delegation cycles by stating ence profile P (N) could return {(i, i ), (j, j )}, mean- that a delegation chain (a path from a delegating voter to their ing that agent i and j have been assigned a preference rela- assigned guru) cannot include the same voter more than once. tion over alternatives but k has not (as k is either delegating Furthermore, individual rationality issues between multiple or abstaining). Similarly, we define as a preference profile V elections is out of scope for this work. Last, Brill and Tal- over voters a function P V : E(V) → 2R , where P V (N) mon (2018) introduce a special case of Christoff and Grossi’s returns a set of preference relations over voters (maximum model, which allows a single voter to be assigned several gu- one for each voter in N). Given profiles P A and P V , voters rus. However, our model assigns one guru per voter. are assigned to the V a, V c and V d electorates as follows. If Similar to our work, GoogleVotes (Hardt and Lopes 2015) A A (i, i ) ∈ P (N), we infer that voter i casts a vote accord- allows a user to select a ranking over other voters and uses, A ing to i and therefore becomes a member of the casting what the authors describe as, a back-track breadth first search electorate V c. If (i, A) ∈/ P A(N) and (i, V ) ∈ P V (N), to assign a guru to a voter. We cannot complete a more i i then i becomes a member of the delegating electorate V d. If comprehensive comparison to GoogleVotes as they have pub- (i, A) ∈/ P A(N) and (i, V ) ∈/ P V (N), i becomes a mem- lished only a general description of their system (without a i i ber of the abstaining electorate V a. formal model). However, we know that their delegation rule is different to our proposed breadth-first delegation rule as Given an electorate N, adding or removing a preference in the Tally/Coverage section of their video example (from relation over alternatives (or over voters) from a preference profile over alternatives P A(N) (or over voters P V (N)), is minute 32 of Hardt 2014), their rule assigns guru C to voter A A F , while our rule would assign guru A to voter F . denoted as follows. For a tuple (i, i ) ∈ P (N), a voter j ∈ V \ N and j’s assigned preference relation over alterna- A A 1.2 Preliminaries tives j ∈ R : Consider a set of voters V and a set of alternatives or out- P A (N) := P A(N) \{(i, A)}, comes A. The set of possible electorates is given by E(V) = −i i V A A A P A (N) := P (N) ∪ {(j, j )}. 2 \{∅}, i.e. non-empty subsets of V. In our model, for every +(j, j ) election there are three sets of electorates V a,V c,V d ∈ E(V) a c d a c d V V such that V ∩ V ∩ V = ∅ and V ∪ V ∪ V = V, where Similarly, for a tuple (i, i ) ∈ P (N), a voter j ∈ V \ N a c d V V sets V , V , V consist of those who abstain, cast a vote and and j’s assigned preference relation over voters j ∈ R : wish to delegate their voting rights, respectively. V V V A preference relation over alternatives for a voter i ∈ V is P−i(N) := P (N) \{(i, i )}, A denoted by i and is a binary relation on A, i.e.: for x, y ∈ V V V A P+(j, V )(N) := P (N) ∪ {(j, j )}. A with x 6= y, the expression x i y indicates that voter i j strictly prefers alternative x over alternative y.A preference To simplify the above, we will be using the notation relation over voters for voter i ∈ V is denoted by V and is i P A,P V ,P A , P A , P V and P V , accordingly. a binary relation on V, i.e.: for i, x, y ∈ V with2 i 6= x, y −i +j −i +j V and x 6= y, the expression x i y indicates that voter i strictly prefers to delegate her voting rights to voter x instead 2 Delegation graph and delegation rules of voter y. For both preference relations, we allow an index We use a graph to model possible delegations between voters: 2A voter cannot include herself in her preference relation over Definition 1. A delegation graph is a weighted directed graph voters. G = (V, E, w) where: •V is the set of nodes representing the agents registered A voting rule f satisfies the cast participation property as voters; when every voter i ∈ V weakly prefers joining any possible • E is the set of directed edges representing delegations voting electorate V c compared to abstaining and regardless between voters; and of who is in the delegating electorate V d. • w is the weight function w : E 7→ N that assigns a value Definition 4. The Cast Participation property holds for a vot- to an edge (i, j) equal to i’s preference ranking of j. ing rule f iff: To generate a delegation graph, we use the following: A V A A V f(d(P , g(P ))) i f(d(P−i, g(P ))), Definition 2. Define as g the delegation graph function which takes as input a preference profile over voters P V and returns for every possible disjoint casting and delegating electorates V c,V d ∈ E(V), where i ∈ V c, and every possible preference the related delegation graph G = (V, E, w) with the follow- c d ing property: for every i, j ∈ V and i 6= j, profile for these electorates P A ∈ PA,V and P V ∈ PV,V . V V V V c V d • if there exists (i, i ) ∈ P with i,x= j; then there For any casting and delegating electorates and , a exists (i, j) ∈ E where w((i, j)) = x. voting rule f satisfies the guru participation property when any voter i ∈ V c weakly benefits from receiving additional We can evaluate a delegation graph through the following: voting rights of any voter j ∈ V. Definition 3. A delegation rule function d takes as input a A Definition 5. The Guru Participation property holds for a vot- preference profile over alternatives P together with a dele- ing rule f iff: gation graph G, and returns another preference profile over ˆA A V A A V alternatives P that resolves delegations. More specifically, f(d(P , g(P ))) i f(d(P , g(P−j))), (1) A ˆA • if (i, i ) ∈ P , then i casts her vote, for every possible disjoint casting and delegating electorates c d c d • if (i, A) ∈ PˆA for a voter j 6= i, then j becomes i’s V ,V ∈ E(V), where i ∈ V , j ∈ V , and every possible j c d final delegate, i.e. her guru, profile P A ∈ PA,V and P V ∈ PV,V that assign j’s vote to A A V A ˆA guru i, i.e. (j, i ) ∈ d(P , g(P )). • if (i, k ) ∈/ P for any k ∈ V, then i abstains. Let F be the set of all voting rules. It is known that For each voter i ∈ V, a delegation rule analyses the subtree only a subset F¯ ⊂ F satisfy (cast) participation. For exam- of the delegation graph rooted at node i and decides whether ple, Fishburn and Brams (1983) show that single transferable i casts, delegates or abstains. If voter i is found to delegate, vote does not satisfy (cast) participation, while Moulin (1988) the chosen delegation rule function will traverse i’s subtree to shows there is no Condorcet-consistent voting rule satisfying find i’s guru. this property given 25 or more voters. We explores guru par- To get the outcome of an election, we use a voting rule ticipation for voting rules in F¯, and our results build on the function f. In our model, f takes as input the modified pref- following observation, which we intuitively descibe: if a new ˆA erence profile over alternatives P (which incorporates del- voter j joins the delegating electorate and only one voter i egations) and returns a single winner or a ranking over alter- from the casting electorate increases the number of times she natives (depending on the voting rule used). In Section 5, we is assigned as a guru, then guru participation is satisfied. show that the output of the voting rule depends on the chosen ˆA delegation rule, meaning that we could get different election Observation 1. Consider i, j ∈ V, profile P returned by A V ˆ0A A V results when only the delegation rule function is different, i.e. d(P , g(P )) and profile P returned by d(P , g(P+j)), f(d(P A, g(P V ))) 6= f(d0(P A, g(P V ))), when d 6= d0. V ˆ0A where i has been assigned as j’s guru, i.e. (j, i ) ∈ P . Guru i becomes weakly better off after j delegates if the fol- 3 Cast and guru participation lowing holds. For every k ∈ V: The key property that we investigate is participation. The par- (a) k’s vote is assigned to guru l ∈ V by both returned pref- ticipation property holds if a voter, by joining an electorate, V ˆA ˆ0A erence profiles, i.e. (k, l ) ∈ P ∩ P , or is at least as satisfied as before joining. This property has (b) k’s vote is assigned to guru i after j joins the delegating been defined only in the context of vote casting (Fishburn and 0 A ˆ A Brams 1983; Moulin 1988). Due to the addition of delega- electorate, i.e. (k, i ) ∈ P , tions in our model, we establish two separate definitions of participation reflecting this new functionality3. 4 Introducing breadth-first delegation For both of the following definitions, note that for an elec- Recall that liquid democracy allows for multi-step delega- torate N ∈ E(V), the set of all preference profiles over al- tions. Therefore, the guru of any i ∈ V d could be any voter A,N ternatives is given by P , while the set of all preference j ∈ V c who is in the sub tree of the delegation graph with V,N profiles over delegates is given by P . root i. In addition, the assigned guru j may not be included V 3 in i’s preference relation i , i.e. it could be that @ x such There could be other interesting participation properties for liq- V uid democracy, such as incentivising deviation from delegating to that i,x= j. In this case, there is at least one intermedi- casting. But this is out of the paper’s scope, as we focus on find- ate delegator between voter i and the assigned guru j. To ing delegation rules that weakly benefit casting voters who become find the exact intermediate delegators, we introduce delega- gurus. tion chains. A delegation chain for a voter i ∈ V d starts with i, then lists the intermediate voters in V d who have further delegated i’s voting rights and ends with i’s assigned guru j ∈ V c. These chains (see Definition 6) must satisfy the fol- lowing conditions: (a) no voter occurs more than once in the chain (to avoid infinite delegation cycles that could otherwise occur) and (b) each member of the chain must be linked to the next member through an edge in the delegation graph, which is generated from the given preference profile over voters. Definition 6. Given profiles P A and P V , a voter i ∈ V d and her guru j ∈ V c, we define a Delegation Chain for i to be an ordered tuple Ci = hi, . . . , ji with the following properties:

(a) For an integer x ∈ [1, |Ci|], let Ci,x indicate the voter (a)(b) at the x-th position in Ci. Then for any pair of integers a x, y ∈ [1, |Ci|] with x 6= y, Figure 1: (a) A delegation graph with electorates V = {t}, V c = {s, r} and V d = {p, q}, meaning that t ab- Ci,x 6= Ci,y. stains, s, r cast, and p, q delegate. The preference rela- A A tions over alternatives are: “No” s “Yes” and “Yes” r (b) For each integer z ∈ [1, |Ci| − 1], there exists an edge “No”. (b) A delegation graph with electorates V a = c d (C ,C ) ∈ E ∈ g(P V ). {}, V = {s, r} and V = {p, q, t}. The preference i,z i,z+1 relations over alternatives remain the same. The only dif- ference to (a) is that voter t decides to delegate with a Observe that the x in the expression Ci,x also indicates V preference relation over voters p t r. how deep the voter Ci,x is in the delegation graph sub- tree rooted with i. Thus sometimes we refer to x as 0 D the depth of Ci,x in Ci. The function w takes as in- and w(Cp) = [1, 2], respectively. The d rule returns pro- put a delegation chain and returns a list of the weights as- ˆA A ˆA file P that assigns s as the guru of p, i.e. (p, s ) ∈ P , signed to each edge among voters in Ci, that is, w(Ci) = 0 0 due to inequality w(Cp)1 < w(Cp)1. Note that Cp satisfies [w(Ci)1, . . . , w(Ci)x, . . . , w(Ci)n−1], where w(Ci)x is the Definition 7. weight of edge (Ci,x,Ci,x+1) and n = |Ci|. Delegation chains can be used as a tool to find a guru for In Example 1, p’s voting right is assigned to guru s, but a voter i ∈ V d. The standard interpretation of liquid democ- why should s (who is the second preference of q) outrank racy delegations prioritises all possible delegation chains in- agent p’s explicit second preference r? This question gains V even more importance the longer the depth first delegation volving i and i’s most preferred voter i,1 before all possible delegation chains involving i and i’s second preferred voter chain is. Given this issue, we define a novel delegation rule V that prioritises a voter’s explicit preferences as follows. A i,2 and so on. Note that this priority rule hold for the deeper B levels of the delegation graph subtree rooted at i. In other breadth-first delegation rule d assigns guru j to i iff: (a) there is a delegation chain Ci that can be formed from i to words, we observe that the standard way to select i’ guru is 0 to choose the first casting voter found through a depth first j; and (b) there is no other delegation chain Ci leading to search in i’s subtree, which motivates the next definition. a different guru k with: either a shorter length or, an equal A depth-first delegation rule dD assigns guru j to i iff: (a) length and a smaller weight at the earliest depth after the root, compared to Ci. there is a delegation chain Ci that can be formed from i to 0 j, and (b) there is no other delegation chain Ci leading to a Definition 8. For i, j, k ∈ V, a breadth-first delegation rule k B ˆA A ˆA different guru that has a smaller weight at the earliest depth d returns a profile P with (i, j ) ∈ P iff (a) and (b) after the root, compared to Ci. hold: Definition 7. For i, j, k ∈ V, a depth-first delegation rule dD (a) ∃ Ci with Ci,|Ci| = j, ˆA A ˆA returns a profile P with (i, j ) ∈ P iff (a) and (b) hold: (b) C0 such that C0 = k, for k 6= j, and @ i i,|Ci|

(a) ∃ Ci with Ci,|Ci| = j, 0 b1. |Ci| < |Ci|, or (b) C0 such that: 0 @ i b2. •| Ci| = |Ci| and 0 0 b1.C i,|C0| = k for k 6= j, •∃ y: w(Ci)y < w(Ci)y and i 0 0 • w(Ci)x ≤ w(Ci)x for all 0 < x < y. b2. •∃ y: w(Ci)y < w(Ci)y and 0 • w(Ci)x ≤ w(Ci)x for all 0 < x < y. Example 2. Consider the delegation graph in Figure 1 (a). There are two delegation chains available for voter p ∈ V: Example 1. Consider the delegation graph in Figure 1 (a). 0 4 Cp = hp, ri and Cp = hp, q, si with weights w(Cp) = [2] There are two delegation chains available for voter p ∈ V: 0 B 0 and w(Cp) = [1, 2], respectively. The d rule returns profile Cp = hp, ri and Cp = hp, q, si with weights w(Cp) = [2] ˆA A ˆA P that assigns r as the guru of p, i.e. (p, r ) ∈ P , due to 4 c 0 Recall that hp, q, ti is not a valid delegation chain as t∈ / V . inequality |Cp| < |Cp|. Note that Cp satisfies Definition 8. DELEGATION GRAPH DELEGATION RULE Yes No rule dB instead, voter p is assigned guru r through the chain D 0 00 Figure 1 (a) d 1 3 Cp due to inequalities |Cp| < |Cp| < |Cp |. Voter q is as- 0 00 Figure 1 (b) dD 3 2 signed guru s through Cq due to |Cq| < |Cq| < |Cq | and B voter t is assigned guru r through Ct because of |Ct| < Figure 1 (a) d 2 2 0 00 B B |Ct| < |Ct |. Therefore, rule d returns the profile over al- Figure 1 (b) d 3 2 A A A A A ternatives {(p, r ), (q, s ), (s, s ), (r, r ), (t, r )}. Table 1: Election results for Figure 1 when using either the depth-first or the breadth-first delegation rule. Examples 3 and 4 show that guru participation may not hold for depth-first delegation when a cycle exists in the del- egation graph. Due to this cycle, when t joins the election, 5 Depth-first versus breadth-first delegation both r and s receive new delegated voting rights, thus Obser- vation 1 does not occur5. We summarise the above for the set Through the next two examples, we show that different dele- ¯ gation rules can have different properties. More specifically, of voting rules satisfying cast participation F . we present an instance where the depth-first delegation rule Theorem 1. Given a voting rule f ∈ F¯, guru participation is cannot guarantee guru participation, while the breadth-first not guaranteed to hold when using the depth-first delegation delegation rule does. rule dD. Example 3. Consider the delegation graph in Figure 1(a) Proof. Consider the preference profile over alternatives and and all possible delegation chains available to each voter the preference profile over voters of Figure 1(b), in V d: C = hp, ri, C0 = hp, q, si and C = hq, si. p p q A A A Using rule dD, voter p is assigned guru s through chain P = {(r, r ), (s, s )} 0 V V V V Cp (see Example 1), while voter q is also assigned guru s P = {(p, p ), (q, q ), (t, t )}, D through chain Cq. Therefore d returns the preference profile where the preferences over alternatives for r and s are: “Yes” A A A A over alternatives {(p, s ), (q, s ), (s, s ), (r, r )}. Us- A “No”, “No” A “Yes” and the preferences over voters for B r s ing rule d instead, voter p is assigned guru r through Cp V V V p, q, t are: q p r, t q s and p t r. We prove this (see Example 2), while q’s guru remains the same. There- theorem using Examples 3 and 4. In Example 3, where voter B fore d returns another preference profile over alternatives: t abstains, rule dD returns profile A A A A {(p, r ), (q, s ), (s, s ), (r, r )}. dD(P A, g(P V )) = {(p, A), (q, A), (s, A), (r, A)}, In the next example we focus on the case where the previ- −t s s s r ously abstaining voter t decides to delegate and show that the which gives three votes (via s) for alternative “No” and one election result is inversed only when dD is used (see Table 1). vote (via r) for alternative “Yes” (see also Table 1). From t dD Example 4. Consider the delegation graph in Figure 1(b) Example 4 where voter delegates, rule returns profile and all possible delegation chains available to each voter in dD(P A, g(P V )) = d V with their respective edge weights: A A A A A {(p, r ), (q, r ), (s, s ), (r, r ), (t, s )}, DELEGATIONCHAINEDGEWEIGHTS which gives three votes for “Yes” and two votes for “No”. Cp = hp, ri w(Cp) = [2], Observe that the election result changes from “No” to “Yes” 0 0 Cp = hp, q, si w(Cp) = [1, 2], despite the fact that t votes for “No” through her guru s, i.e. A D A V 00 00 (t, s ) ∈ d (P , g(P )). Note that due to the preference Cp = hp, q, t, ri w(Cp ) = [1, 1, 2], A “No” s “Yes”, we get Cq = hq, si w(Cq) = [2], D A V A D A V 0 0 f(d (P , g(P ))) ≺s f(d (P , g(P−t))), (2) Cq = hq, t, ri w(Cq) = [1, 2], 00 00 Cq = hq, t, p, ri w(Cq ) = [1, 1, 2], where f is a voting rule satisfying cast participation. How- C = ht, ri w(C ) = [2], ever, the preference expressed by (2) implies that guru s be- t t t 0 0 comes worst off after delegates to her, which violates the Ct = ht, p, ri w(Ct) = [1, 2], definition of guru participation (1), proving this theorem. C00 = ht, p, q, si w(C00) = [1, 1, 2]. t t We highlight that if a delegation graph has no cycle then Using rule dD, observe that voter p is assigned guru r guru participation is guaranteed to hold for the depth-first del- 00 00 00 through the chain Cp due to w(Cp )1 < w(Cp)1, w(Cp )1 = egation rule, which show through Lemma 1 and Theorem 2. 0 00 0 D w(Cp)1 and w(Cp )2 < w(Cp)2. Voter q is also as- Lemma 1. When using depth-first delegation rule d , if there 00 00 signed guru r through chain Cq since w(Cq )1 < w(Cq)1, is no cycle in the delegation graph then Observation 1 holds. 00 0 00 0 w(Cq )1 = w(Cq)1 and w(Cq )2 < w(Cq)2. Last, voter 00 00 t is assigned guru s through chain Ct because w(Ct )1 < 5Observation 1 states how guru participation can be satisfied 00 0 00 0 w(Ct)1, w(Ct )1 = w(Ct)1 and w(Ct )2 < w(Ct)2. There- when a voting rule satisfying cast participation is used: when a voter fore rule dD returns the preference profile over alterna- joins the delegating electorate, if only one voter increase the number A A A A A tives {(p, r ), (q, r ), (s, s ), (r, r ), (t, s )}. Using of times assigned as a guru, then this voter is weakly better off. B 0 Proof. Assume there exists a delegation graph with no cycles (a) rule d should use chain Cj = hj, . . . , li, which contra- where Observation 1 does not hold. We show that the only dicts the assumption that Cj is used, case where Observation 1 does not hold is when a cycle exists. (b) there exists a shared intermediate voter e such that Recall that, by Observation 1, guru participation is guaran- teed to hold if whenever a voter j joins the delegating elec- Cj = hj, . . . , e, g, . . . , ii and torate, there exists only one voter, say i, in the casting elec- Ck = hk,...,f,j,...,li, torate who increases the number of times she becomes a guru. B Consider another voter k who changes her assigned guru to a where e ∈ hk, . . . , fi. Recall that d prioritises shorter voter l after j joins the delegating electorate, where l 6= i and length delegation chains (see definition 8). We show that k 6= j i l voter k has a shorter delegation chain available that does . This means that, apart from , voter also increases 0 0 not include j, i.e. there exists a Ck such that |Ck| < |Ck| the times she becomes a guru. Next we describe that, when 0 0 dD is used, this case can only arise through the following and j∈ / Ck. Let Ck = hk, . . . , e, g, . . . , ii. Accord- circumstance. Let guru i be assigned to voter j through dele- ing to dB, the delegation chain used to assign j’s guru, gation chain Cj = hj, . . . , ii and guru l be assigned to voter hj . . . , e, g, . . . , ii, is shorter or equal in length to any k through delegation chain Ck = hk, ..., j, ..., li. Chain Ck other alternative, thus |hj, . . . , e, g, . . . , ii| ≤ |hj, . . . , li|. must pass through j because all chains without j are avail- Observe that able before j delegates. Note that even if both chains pass |hg, . . . , ii| < |hj, . . . , e, g, . . . , ii| ≤ |hj, . . . , li ⇒ through voter j, they end at different gurus. For dD, this only |hk, . . . , ei| + |hg, . . . , ii| < |hk, . . . , ei| + |hj, . . . , li|. occurs if there exists a voter h with h 6= i, j, l, such that Since e ∈ hk, . . . , fi, we can rewrite the previous as Cj = hj, . . . , h, . . . , ii and (3) |hk, ..., ei| + |hg, ..., ii| < |hk, ..., fi| + |hj, ..., li|. Ck = hk, . . . , h, . . . , j, . . . , li. (4) dB C0 k The reason for the above is that k’s delegation goes through Therefore, rule should use k to assign ’s guru. j∈ / C0 h to reach j, but then the preferred delegation from j passes However, since k, the assumption is contradicted. through h (see chain Cj). As k’s delegation already includes The contradictions of both (a) and (b) prove this lemma. h before j, and an intermediator voter cannot be repeated Given a voting rule f ∈ F¯, guru participation (definition 3), k uses another route to guru l (through a less Theorem 3. is guaranteed to hold when using the breadth-first delegation preferred option of j). From (3) and (4), observe that there ex- rule dB. ists a cycle in the graph, i.e. the cycle hh, ..., j, ..., hi, which contradicts our assumption and proves the lemma. Proof. By Observation 2, given voters j and k in the delegat- ing electorate, if a voter k does not delegate through j, then Theorem 2. Given a voting rule f ∈ F¯ and a delegation k’s assigned guru (if any) is the same as if j abstained. By graph with no cycles, guru participation is guaranteed to hold Lemma 2, if a voter k delegates through j, then the guru of k when using the depth-first delegation rule dD. is the same as the guru of j. Combining the above cases, we Proof. We prove this using Lemma 1 and Observation 1. show that (regardless of k delegating through j or not), when- ever a voter j joins the delegating electorate and is assigned We have previously shown that depth-first delegation does to a guru i, then i is the only casting voter who increases the not guarantee guru participation when the delegation graph number of times she becomes a guru. Since also f ∈ F¯, then contains cycles. The next theorem states that breadth-first del- Observation 1 holds, meaning that the breadth-first delegation egation always guarantees guru participation. To show this, rule dB is guaranteed to satisfy guru participation. we first introduce the following observation and lemma. Observation 2. Consider two voters j and k in a delegating 6 Conclusion and future work electorate. Using the breadth-first delegation rule dB, if k is In this paper, we discuss the depth-first and the breadth-first assigned guru l through a delegation chain Ck with j∈ / Ck, delegation rule proving that only the latter has the desirable then k is assigned guru l even when j abstains. This is be- property that every guru weakly prefers receiving delegating B cause rule d has used Ck ahead of any possible delegation voting rights. However, there could be other delegation rules chain that includes j. Therefore chain Ck will still be used satisfying the same or other interesting properties that im- by dB when j is in the abstaining electorate and no possible prove the concept of liquid democracy. Towards this path, delegation chain that includes j can be formed. we note that the issue of current liquid democracy implemen- Lemma 2. Consider two voters j and k in a delegating elec- tations suffering from a small subset of gurus representing torate. Using the breadth-first delegation rule dB, if voter a large part of the electorate (Kling et al. 2015) could be counteracted by the breadth-first delegation rule, as this rule k is assigned her guru through a delegation chain Ck with favours keeping delegated voting rights close to their origin. j ∈ Ck, then k is assigned the same guru as j. We strongly believe that this hypothesis should be investi- Proof. Assume that, using dB, voter j is assigned guru i gated. Other interesting future work include investigating through delegation chain Cj = hj . . . , ii and k is assigned guru participation with voting rules that do not satisfy cast a different guru l through a delegation chain that includes j, participation, relaxing the assumption of strict personal rank- i.e. Ck = hk,...,j,...,li. Then either (a) or (b) occurs: ings over voters, and analysing other types of participation. References [Behrens et al., 2014] Jan Behrens, Axel Kistner, Andreas Nitsche, and Bjorn Swierczek. The Principles of Liquid- Feedback. Interaktive Demokratie, 2014. [Boella et al., 2018] Guido Boella, Louise Francis, Elena Grassi, Axel Kistner, Andreas Nitsche, Alexey Noskov, Luigi Sanasi, Adriano Savoca, Claudio Schifanella, and Ioannis Tsampoulatidis. Wegovnow: A map based plat- form to engage the local civic society. In Companion Pro- ceedings of the The Web Conference, WWW 2018, Lyon , France, April 23-27, 2018, pages 1215–1219, 2018. [Brill and Talmon, 2018] Markus Brill and Nimrod Talmon. Pairwise liquid democracy. In Proceedings of the Twenty- Seventh International Joint Conference on Artificial Intel- ligence, IJCAI 2018, July 13-19, 2018, Stockholm, Swe- den., pages 137–143, 2018. [Brill, 2018] Markus Brill. Interactive democracy. In Pro- ceedings of the 17th International Conference on Au- tonomous Agents and MultiAgent Systems, AAMAS 2018, Stockholm, Sweden, July 10-15, 2018, pages 1183–1187, 2018. [Christoff and Grossi, 2017] Zoe´ Christoff and Davide Grossi. Binary voting with delegable proxy: An analysis of liquid democracy. In Proceedings of the Sixteenth Conference on Theoretical Aspects of Rationality and Knowledge, TARK 2017, Liverpool, UK, 24-26 July 2017., pages 134–150, 2017. [Fishburn and Brams, 1983] Peter C. Fishburn and Steven J. Brams. Paradoxes of preferential voting. Mathematics Magazine, 56(4):207–214, 1983. [Hardt and Lopes, 2015] Steve Hardt and Lia C. R. Lopes. Google votes: A liquid democracy experiment on a corpo- rate social network. Technical report, Technical Disclosure Commons, Google, 2015. [Hardt, 2014] Steve Hardt. Liquid democracy with google votes. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v= F4lkCECSBFw, 2014. Accessed: 2018-07-17. [Kahng et al., 2018] Anson Kahng, Simon Mackenzie, and Ariel D. Procaccia. Liquid democracy: An algorith- mic perspective. In Proceedings of the Thirty-Second AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, New Orleans, Louisiana, USA, February 2-7, 2018, 2018. [Kling et al., 2015] Christoph Carl Kling, Jer´ omeˆ Kunegis, Heinrich Hartmann, Markus Strohmaier, and Steffen Staab. Voting behaviour and power in online democracy: A study of liquidfeedback in germany’s pirate party. In Proceedings of the Ninth International Conference on Web and Social Media, ICWSM 2015, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK, May 26-29, 2015, pages 208–217, 2015. [Moulin, 1988] Herve Moulin. Condorcet’s principle implies the no show paradox. Journal of Economic Theory, 45:53– 64, 1988.