DOCSLIB.ORG

Condorcet's Theory of Voting H

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Condorcet's Theory of Voting H CONDORCET'S THEORY OF VOTING H. P. YOUNG University of Maryland Condcrcet's criterion states that an alternative that defeats every other by a simple majority is the socially optimal choice. Condorcet argued that if the object of voting is to determine the "best" decision for society but voters sometimes make mistakes in their judgments, then the majority alternative (if it exists) is statistical- ly most likely to be the best choice. Strictly speaking, this claim is not true; in some situations Borda's rule gives a sharper estimate of the best alternative. Nevertheless, Condorcet did propose a novel and statistically correct rule for finding the most likely ranking of the alternatives. This procedure, which is sometimes known as "Kemeny's rule," is the unique social welfare function that satisfies a variant of independence of irrelevant alternatives together with several other standard properties. [Our aim is] to inquire by mere reasoning, what own prevails, this proves only that I have degree of confidence the judgment of assemblies made a mistake, and that what I believed deserves, whether large or small, subject to a high or low plurality, split into several different to be the general will was not so" (1962, bodies or gathered into one only, composed of 153). men more or less wise. This ambiguous and slightly disquieting -Condorcet idea was given a more satisfactory expres- sion some twenty years later by the math- ematician and social philosopher Marie A central problem Jean Antoine Nicolas Caritat, Marquis de in democratic theory is to justify the prin- C0ndorcet.l In his remarkable work, ciple of majority rule. Why should the Essai sur l'application de l'analyse h la opinion of a majority of citizens or of probabilith des dhcisions rendues h la elected representatives bind the rest of pluralith des voix (1785), Condorcet pro- society? One of the earliest and most cele- posed the following argument for decision brated answers to this question was at- by majority: Enlightened voters honestly tempted by Rousseau in The Social Con- attempt to judge what decision will best tract (1762). The opinion of the majority serve society. They may occasionally is legitimate, said Rousseau, because it judge wrongly. But assuming that they expresses the "general will." "When a law are more often right than wrong, the is proposed in the people's assembly, majority opinion will very likely be "cor- what is asked of them is not precisely rect." This is just a property of large num- whether they approve of the proposition bers and is intuitively obvious when there or reject it, but whether it is in conformity are only two possible decisions. Con- with the general will . each by giving dorcet rigorously demonstrated this prop- his vote gives his opinion on this ques- osition using the newly developed cal- tion, and the counting of votes yields a culus of probabilities. He then proceeded declaration of the general will. When, to show how the idea could be elaborated therefore, the opinion contrary to my into a whole series of results about the AMERICAN POLITICAL SCIENCE REVIEW VOL. 82 NO. 4 DECEMBER 1988 American Political Science Review Vol. 82 reliability of decisions of a voting body, object of voting is not merely to balance depending on its size, the competence of subjective opinions; rather, it is a collec- its members, and the number of alterna- tive quest for truth. In any field of candi- tives under consideration. These "jury dates (or agenda of alternatives) there is theorems" have recently attracted con- some truly best candidate, a truly second- siderable attention (Grofman and Owen best candidate, and so forth. What is 1986; Grofman, Owen, and Feld 1983; meant here by truly best? Ultimately it is Urken and Traflet 1984).2 an undefined term, a notion that is postu- It has not been widely recognized, how- lated in order to make the theory work- ever, that Condorcet showed how the like the ether in classical physics. To be same arguments could be extended to the sure, in some situations the notion of case of more than two decisions. He was, "best" decision is quite realistic. An exam- of course, the first to realize the complica- ple is trial by jury, where the group deci- tions that arise in this case, namely, the sion problem is to determine guilt or inno- possibility of cyclic majorities. But he cence. Another is the pooling of expert went on to suggest-or at least came very opinions about an observable event, like close to suggesting-a definite rule for the state of the economy or tomorrow's. ranking any number of alternatives even weather.3 when cyclic majorities are involved. For the present let us grant Condorcet's Admittedly, Condorcet's argument is dif- hypothesis that the notion of a "correct" ficult to follow and full of inconsistencies. decision also applies to political decision Moreover, the rule that he proposed is at making. Thus, voters evaluate candidates variance with the algorithm that he pro- for political office in terms of their ability posed for computing it. Nevertheless, his to lead. Legislators consider bills in terms stated goal is clear: to find the social deci- of their potential contribution to the pub- sion that is most likely to be "correct." lic welfare. Granted that voters are at First I summarize Condorcet's proposal least sometimes mindful of the public in- and dispose of the claims made by some terest and vote accordingly, Condorcet's commentators that Condorcet gave no argument proceeds aIong the following solution for the general case. I then show lines. People differ in their opinions be- that Condorcet's method can be inter- cause they are imperfect judges of which preted as a statistical procedure for esti- decision really is best. If on balance each mating the ranking of the candidates that voter is more often right than wrong, is most likely to be correct. If only one however, then the majority view is very candidate is to be selected, however, then likely to identify the decision that is objec- an earlier method proposed by Con- tively best. In other words, the majority dorcet's rival Borda often gives better opinion gives the best estimate, in a statis- results. In the final section I show that tical sense, of which candidate is most Condorcet's decision rule can also be jus- likely to be best. One of Condorcet's tified in modern social choice terms. It is major contributions was to show how this the unique ranking procedure that satis- idea can be generalized to the case of fies a variant of independence of irrele- many candidates. vant alternatives together with several Consider a list of candidates (or other standard conditions in social choice decisions) that are voted upon pair- theory. wise. Assume that each voter, when faced with a comparison of the form, "Is a bet- ter than b or b better than a?" chooses Condorcet's Model correctly with some fixed probability For Condorcet, as for Rousseau, the greater than 1/2. Each voter judges every Condorcet's Theory pair of candidates and the results are tal- Table 1. Voting Matrix with lied in a voting matrix. Table 1shows a Three Alternatives and 11 Voters voting matrix with 13 voters and three candidates. Each entry in the matrix gives the total number of votes obtained by the row candidate over the column candidate. For example, the comparison a versus b yields eight votes in favor of a, five in favor of b. The comparison b versus c 1. All possible opinions that do not imply a con- tradiction reduce to an indication of the order of yields eleven votes for b and two for c. merit that one judges to exist among the candi- The comparison a versus c yields six for ,a dates ... therefore for n candidates one would and seven for c. Notice that this vote have n(n - 1) . .2 possible opinions. entails the cyclical majority a >b, b >c, 2. Each voter having thus given his or her c >a. opinion by indicating the candidates' order of worth, if one compares them two by two, one Given a series of pairwise votes as in will have in each opinion n(n - 1)/2 proposi- Table 1, the problem posed by Condorcet tions to consider separately. Taking the number is to find the ranking of all the candidates of times that each is contained in the opinion of that is most likely to be correct, that is, one of the q voters, one will have the number of voices who are for each proposition. the ranking that would have produced the 3. One forms an opinion from those n(n - observed votes with highest probability. 1)/2 propositions that agree with the most At first blush it might appear that this voices. If this opinion is among the n(n - 1) ... problem is insoluble unless the compe- 2 possible opinions, one regards as elected the subject to whom this opinion accords the pref- tency levels of the voters are known. This erence. If this opinion is among the 2n(n-1)'2- difficulty can be circumvented if one n(n - 1)...2 impossible opinions, then one suc- makes the simplifying assumption (which cessively deletes from that impossible opinion Condorcet did) that the voters all have the the propositions that have the least plurality, and same competence. In this case the answer one adopts the opinion from those that remain. turns out to be independent of the level of (1785, 125-26) competence, as I shall show in the next Let us apply this rule to the situation in section.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • A Generalization of the Minisum and Minimax Voting Methods
    A Generalization of the Minisum and Minimax Voting Methods Shankar N. Sivarajan Undergraduate, Department of Physics Indian Institute of Science Bangalore 560 012, India [email protected] Faculty Advisor: Prof. Y. Narahari Deparment of Computer Science and Automation Revised Version: December 4, 2017 Abstract In this paper, we propose a family of approval voting-schemes for electing committees based on the preferences of voters. In our schemes, we calcu- late the vector of distances of the possible committees from each of the ballots and, for a given p-norm, choose the one that minimizes the magni- tude of the distance vector under that norm. The minisum and minimax methods suggested by previous authors and analyzed extensively in the literature naturally appear as special cases corresponding to p = 1 and p = 1; respectively. Supported by examples, we suggest that using a small value of p; such as 2 or 3, provides a good compromise between the minisum and minimax voting methods with regard to the weightage given to approvals and disapprovals. For large but finite p; our method reduces to finding the committee that covers the maximum number of voters, and this is far superior to the minimax method which is prone to ties. We also discuss extensions of our methods to ternary voting. 1 Introduction In this paper, we consider the problem of selecting a committee of k members out of n candidates based on preferences expressed by m voters. The most common way of conducting this election is to allow each voter to select his favorite candidate and vote for him/her, and we select the k candidates with the most number of votes.
    [Show full text]
  • 1 Introduction 2 Condorcet and Borda Tallies
    1 Introduction General introduction goes here. 2 Condorcet and Borda Tallies 2.1 Definitions We are primarily interested in comparing the behaviors of two information aggregation methods, namely the Condorcet and Borda tallies. This interest is motivated by both historical and practical concerns: the relative merits of the two methods have been argued since the 18th century, and, although variations on the Borda tally are much more common in practice, there is a significant body of theoretical evidence that the Condorcet tally is in many cases superior. To begin, we provide formal definitions of both of these methods, and of a generalized information aggregation problem. An information aggregation problem, often referred to simply as a voting problem, is a problem which involves taking information from a number of disparate sources, and using this information to produce a single output. Problems of this type arise in numerous domains. In political science, they are common, occurring whenever voters cast votes which are used to decide 1 the outcome of some issue. Although less directly, they also occur in fields as diverse as control theory and cognitive science. Wherever there is a system which must coalesce information from its subsystems, there is potentially the need to balance conflicting information about a single topic. In any such circumstance, if there is not reason to trust any single source more than the others, the problem can be phrased as one of information aggregation. 2.1.1 Information Aggregation Problems To facilitate the formalization of these problems, we only consider cases in which a finite number of information sources (which shall henceforth be re- ferred to as voters) provide information regarding some contested issue.
    [Show full text]
  • THE SINGLE-MEMBER PLURALITY and MIXED-MEMBER PROPORTIONAL ELECTORAL SYSTEMS : Different Concepts of an Election
    THE SINGLE-MEMBER PLURALITY AND MIXED-MEMBER PROPORTIONAL ELECTORAL SYSTEMS : Different Concepts of an Election by James C. Anderson A thesis presented to the University of Waterloo in fulfillment of the thesis requirement for the degree of Master of Arts in Political Science Waterloo, Ontario, Canada, 2006 © James C. Anderson 2006 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Library and Bibliotheque et Archives Canada Archives Canada Published Heritage Direction du Branch Patrimoine de I'edition 395 Wellington Street 395, rue Wellington Ottawa ON K1A 0N4 Ottawa ON K1A 0N4 Canada Canada Your file Votre reference ISBN: 978-0-494-23700-7 Our file Notre reference ISBN: 978-0-494-23700-7 NOTICE: AVIS: The author has granted a non­ L'auteur a accorde une licence non exclusive exclusive license allowing Library permettant a la Bibliotheque et Archives and Archives Canada to reproduce,Canada de reproduire, publier, archiver, publish, archive, preserve, conserve,sauvegarder, conserver, transmettre au public communicate to the public by par telecommunication ou par I'lnternet, preter, telecommunication or on the Internet,distribuer et vendre des theses partout dans loan, distribute and sell theses le monde, a des fins commerciales ou autres, worldwide, for commercial or non­ sur support microforme, papier, electronique commercial purposes, in microform,et/ou autres formats. paper, electronic and/or any other formats. The author retains copyright L'auteur conserve la propriete du droit d'auteur ownership and moral rights in et des droits moraux qui protege cette these. this thesis. Neither the thesis Ni la these ni des extraits substantiels de nor substantial extracts from it celle-ci ne doivent etre imprimes ou autrement may be printed or otherwise reproduits sans son autorisation.
    [Show full text]
  • Absolute Voting Rules Adrian Vermeule
    University of Chicago Law School Chicago Unbound Coase-Sandor Working Paper Series in Law and Coase-Sandor Institute for Law and Economics Economics 2005 Absolute Voting Rules Adrian Vermeule Follow this and additional works at: https://chicagounbound.uchicago.edu/law_and_economics Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation Adrian Vermeule, "Absolute Voting Rules" (John M. Olin Program in Law and Economics Working Paper No. 257, 2005). This Working Paper is brought to you for free and open access by the Coase-Sandor Institute for Law and Economics at Chicago Unbound. It has been accepted for inclusion in Coase-Sandor Working Paper Series in Law and Economics by an authorized administrator of Chicago Unbound. For more information, please contact [email protected]. CHICAGO JOHN M. OLIN LAW & ECONOMICS WORKING PAPER NO. 257 (2D SERIES) Absolute Voting Rules Adrian Vermeule THE LAW SCHOOL THE UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO August 2005 This paper can be downloaded without charge at: The Chicago Working Paper Series Index: http://www.law.uchicago.edu/Lawecon/index.html and at the Social Science Research Network Electronic Paper Collection: http://ssrn.com/abstract_id=791724 Absolute Voting Rules Adrian Vermeule* The theory of voting rules developed in law, political science, and economics typically compares simple majority rule with alternatives, such as various types of supermajority rules1 and submajority rules.2 There is another critical dimension to these questions, however. Consider the following puzzles: $ In the United States Congress, the votes of a majority of those present and voting are necessary to approve a law.3 In the legislatures of California and Minnesota,4 however, the votes of a majority of all elected members are required.
    [Show full text]
  • Stable Voting
    Stable Voting Wesley H. Hollidayy and Eric Pacuitz y University of California, Berkeley ([email protected]) z University of Maryland ([email protected]) September 12, 2021 Abstract In this paper, we propose a new single-winner voting system using ranked ballots: Stable Voting. The motivating principle of Stable Voting is that if a candidate A would win without another candidate B in the election, and A beats B in a head-to-head majority comparison, then A should still win in the election with B included (unless there is another candidate A0 who has the same kind of claim to winning, in which case a tiebreaker may choose between A and A0). We call this principle Stability for Winners (with Tiebreaking). Stable Voting satisfies this principle while also having a remarkable ability to avoid tied outcomes in elections even with small numbers of voters. 1 Introduction Voting reform efforts in the United States have achieved significant recent successes in replacing Plurality Voting with Instant Runoff Voting (IRV) for major political elections, including the 2018 San Francisco Mayoral Election and the 2021 New York City Mayoral Election. It is striking, by contrast, that Condorcet voting methods are not currently used in any political elections.1 Condorcet methods use the same ranked ballots as IRV but replace the counting of first-place votes with head- to-head comparisons of candidates: do more voters prefer candidate A to candidate B or prefer B to A? If there is a candidate A who beats every other candidate in such a head-to-head majority comparison, this so-called Condorcet winner wins the election.
    [Show full text]
  • Single-Winner Voting Method Comparison Chart
    Single-winner Voting Method Comparison Chart This chart compares the most widely discussed voting methods for electing a single winner (and thus does not deal with multi-seat or proportional representation methods). There are countless possible evaluation criteria. The Criteria at the top of the list are those we believe are most important to U.S. voters. Plurality Two- Instant Approval4 Range5 Condorcet Borda (FPTP)1 Round Runoff methods6 Count7 Runoff2 (IRV)3 resistance to low9 medium high11 medium12 medium high14 low15 spoilers8 10 13 later-no-harm yes17 yes18 yes19 no20 no21 no22 no23 criterion16 resistance to low25 high26 high27 low28 low29 high30 low31 strategic voting24 majority-favorite yes33 yes34 yes35 no36 no37 yes38 no39 criterion32 mutual-majority no41 no42 yes43 no44 no45 yes/no 46 no47 criterion40 prospects for high49 high50 high51 medium52 low53 low54 low55 U.S. adoption48 Condorcet-loser no57 yes58 yes59 no60 no61 yes/no 62 yes63 criterion56 Condorcet- no65 no66 no67 no68 no69 yes70 no71 winner criterion64 independence of no73 no74 yes75 yes/no 76 yes/no 77 yes/no 78 no79 clones criterion72 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 monotonicity yes no no yes yes yes/no yes criterion80 prepared by FairVote: The Center for voting and Democracy (April 2009). References Austen-Smith, David, and Jeffrey Banks (1991). “Monotonicity in Electoral Systems”. American Political Science Review, Vol. 85, No. 2 (June): 531-537. Brewer, Albert P. (1993). “First- and Secon-Choice Votes in Alabama”. The Alabama Review, A Quarterly Review of Alabama History, Vol. ?? (April): ?? - ?? Burgin, Maggie (1931). The Direct Primary System in Alabama.
    [Show full text]
  • A Canadian Model of Proportional Representation by Robert S. Ring A
    Proportional-first-past-the-post: A Canadian model of Proportional Representation by Robert S. Ring A thesis submitted to the School of Graduate Studies in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Arts Department of Political Science Memorial University St. John’s, Newfoundland and Labrador May 2014 ii Abstract For more than a decade a majority of Canadians have consistently supported the idea of proportional representation when asked, yet all attempts at electoral reform thus far have failed. Even though a majority of Canadians support proportional representation, a majority also report they are satisfied with the current electoral system (even indicating support for both in the same survey). The author seeks to reconcile these potentially conflicting desires by designing a uniquely Canadian electoral system that keeps the positive and familiar features of first-past-the- post while creating a proportional election result. The author touches on the theory of representative democracy and its relationship with proportional representation before delving into the mechanics of electoral systems. He surveys some of the major electoral system proposals and options for Canada before finally presenting his made-in-Canada solution that he believes stands a better chance at gaining approval from Canadians than past proposals. iii Acknowledgements First of foremost, I would like to express my sincerest gratitude to my brilliant supervisor, Dr. Amanda Bittner, whose continuous guidance, support, and advice over the past few years has been invaluable. I am especially grateful to you for encouraging me to pursue my Master’s and write about my electoral system idea.
    [Show full text]
  • Incentivising Participation in Liquid Democracy with Breadth-First Delegation
    King’s Research Portal Document Version Peer reviewed version Link to publication record in King's Research Portal Citation for published version (APA): Kotsialou, G., & Riley, L. (Accepted/In press). Incentivising Participation in Liquid Democracy with Breadth-First Delegation . In International Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems 2020: Social Choice and Cooperative Game Theory Citing this paper Please note that where the full-text provided on King's Research Portal is the Author Accepted Manuscript or Post-Print version this may differ from the final Published version. If citing, it is advised that you check and use the publisher's definitive version for pagination, volume/issue, and date of publication details. And where the final published version is provided on the Research Portal, if citing you are again advised to check the publisher's website for any subsequent corrections. General rights Copyright and moral rights for the publications made accessible in the Research Portal are retained by the authors and/or other copyright owners and it is a condition of accessing publications that users recognize and abide by the legal requirements associated with these rights. •Users may download and print one copy of any publication from the Research Portal for the purpose of private study or research. •You may not further distribute the material or use it for any profit-making activity or commercial gain •You may freely distribute the URL identifying the publication in the Research Portal Take down policy If you believe that this document breaches copyright please contact [email protected] providing details, and we will remove access to the work immediately and investigate your claim.
    [Show full text]
  • Chapter 9:Social Choice: the Impossible Dream
    Chapter 9:Social Choice: The Impossible Dream September 18, 2013 Chapter 9:Social Choice: The Impossible Dream Last Time Last time we talked about Voting systems Majority Rule Condorcet's Method Plurality Borda Count Sequential Pairwise Voting Chapter 9:Social Choice: The Impossible Dream Condorcet's Method Definition A ballot consisting of such a rank ordering of candidates is called a preference list ballot because it is a statement of the preferences of the individual who is voting. Description of Condorcet's Method With the voting system known as Condorcet's method, a candidate is a winner precisely when he or she would, on the basis of the ballots cast, defeat every other candidate in a one-on-one contest using majority rule. Chapter 9:Social Choice: The Impossible Dream Example Consider the following set of preference lists: Number of Voters(9) Rank 3 1 1 1 1 1 1 First A A B B C C D Second D C C C B D B Third C B D A D B C Fourth B D A D A A A Winner: C Chapter 9:Social Choice: The Impossible Dream Pros and Cons of Condorcet's Method Pro: Takes all preferences into account. Con: Condorcet's Voting Paradox With three or more candidates, there are elections in which Condorcet's method yields no winners. In particular, the following ballots constitute an election in which Condorcet's method yields no winner. Chapter 9:Social Choice: The Impossible Dream Plurality Voting Plurality Voting Each voter pick their top choice. Chapter 9:Social Choice: The Impossible Dream Example Consider the following set of preference lists: Number of Voters(9) Rank 3 1 1 1 1 1 1 First A A B B C C D Second D B C C B D C Third B C D A D B B Fourth C D A D A A A Winner: A Chapter 9:Social Choice: The Impossible Dream Pros and Cons of Plurality Voting May's Theorem Among all two-candidate voting systems that never result in a tie, majority rule is the only one that treats all voters equally, treats both candidates equally, and is monotone.
    [Show full text]
  • How to Choose a Winner: the Mathematics of Social Choice
    Snapshots of modern mathematics № 9/2015 from Oberwolfach How to choose a winner: the mathematics of social choice Victoria Powers Suppose a group of individuals wish to choose among several options, for example electing one of several candidates to a political office or choosing the best contestant in a skating competition. The group might ask: what is the best method for choosing a winner, in the sense that it best reflects the individual pref- erences of the group members? We will see some examples showing that many voting methods in use around the world can lead to paradoxes and bad out- comes, and we will look at a mathematical model of group decision making. We will discuss Arrow’s im- possibility theorem, which says that if there are more than two choices, there is, in a very precise sense, no good method for choosing a winner. This snapshot is an introduction to social choice theory, the study of collective decision processes and procedures. Examples of such situations include • voting and election, • events where a winner is chosen by judges, such as figure skating, • ranking of sports teams by experts, • groups of friends deciding on a restaurant to visit or a movie to see. Let’s start with two examples, one from real life and the other made up. 1 Example 1. In the 1998 election for governor of Minnesota, there were three candidates: Norm Coleman, a Republican; Skip Humphrey, a Democrat; and independent candidate Jesse Ventura. Ventura had never held elected office and was, in fact, a professional wrestler. The voting method used was what is called plurality: each voter chooses one candidate, and the candidate with the highest number of votes wins.
    [Show full text]
  • Liquid Democracy: an Algorithmic Perspective
    Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research 70 (2021) 1223-1252 Submitted 11/2020; published 03/2021 Liquid Democracy: An Algorithmic Perspective Anson Kahng [email protected] Computer Science Department Carnegie Mellon University Simon Mackenzie [email protected] University of New South Wales Ariel D. Procaccia [email protected] School of Engineering and Applied Sciences Harvard University Abstract We study liquid democracy, a collective decision making paradigm that allows voters to transitively delegate their votes, through an algorithmic lens. In our model, there are two alternatives, one correct and one incorrect, and we are interested in the probability that the majority opinion is correct. Our main question is whether there exist delegation mechanisms that are guaranteed to outperform direct voting, in the sense of being always at least as likely, and sometimes more likely, to make a correct decision. Even though we assume that voters can only delegate their votes to better-informed voters, we show that local delegation mechanisms, which only take the local neighborhood of each voter as input (and, arguably, capture the spirit of liquid democracy), cannot provide the foregoing guarantee. By contrast, we design a non-local delegation mechanism that does provably outperform direct voting under mild assumptions about voters. 1. Introduction Liquid democracy is a modern approach to voting in which voters can either vote directly or delegate their vote to other voters. In contrast to the classic proxy voting paradigm (Miller, 1969), the key innovation underlying liquid democracy is that proxies | who were selected by voters to vote on their behalf | may delegate their own vote to a proxy, and, in doing so, further delegate all the votes entrusted to them.
    [Show full text]
  • Incentivising Participation in Liquid Democracy with Breadth-First Delegation∗
    Research Paper AAMAS 2020, May 9–13, Auckland, New Zealand Incentivising Participation in Liquid Democracy with Breadth-First Delegation∗ Grammateia Kotsialou Luke Riley Political Economy - King’s College London Informatics - King’s College London, Quant Network London, United Kingdom London, United Kingdom [email protected] luke.riley@{kcl.ac.uk,quant.network} ABSTRACT Party in Argentina and Partido de Internet in Spain have been ex- Liquid democracy allows members of an electorate to either directly perimenting with liquid democracy implementations. Additionally, vote over alternatives, or delegate their voting rights to someone the local governments of the London Southwark borough and the they trust. Most of the liquid democracy literature and implementa- Italian cities Turino and San Dona di Piave are working on integrat- tions allow each voter to nominate only one delegate per election. ing liquid democracy for community engagement processes (Boella However, if that delegate abstains, the voting rights assigned to et al. [2018]). In the technology domain, the online platform Liq- her are left unused. To minimise the number of unused delegations, uidFeedback uses a liquid democracy system where a user selects it has been suggested that each voter should declare a personal a single guru for different topics (Behrens et al. [2014]; Kling etal. ranking over voters she trusts. In this paper, we show that even if [2015]). Another prominent online example is GoogleVotes (Hardt personal rankings over voters are declared, the standard delegation and Lopes [2015]), where each user wishing to delegate can select method of liquid democracy remains problematic. More specifically, a ranking over other voters.
    [Show full text]