Arxiv:2105.05142V1 [Cs.GT] 11 May 2021 Less Comfortable With

Pirates in Wonderland: Liquid Democracy has Bicriteria Guarantees Jonathan A. Noel1, Mashbat Suzuki2, and Adrian Vetta2 1 University of Victoria, Victoria, Canada [email protected] 2 McGill University, Montreal, Canada [email protected], [email protected] Abstract. Liquid democracy has a natural graphical representation, the delegation graph. Consequently, the strategic aspects of liquid democracy can be studied as a game over delegation graphs, called the liquid democracy game. Our main result is that this game has bicriteria approximation guarantees, in terms of both rationality and social welfare. Specifically, we prove the price of stability for -Nash equilibria is exactly in the liquid democracy game. 1 Introduction Liquid democracy is a form of direct and representative democracy, based on the concept of delegation. Each voter has the choice of voting themselves or transferring (transitively) its vote to a trusted proxy. Recent interest in liquid democracy, from both practical and theoretical perspectives, was sparked by the Pirate Party in Germany and its Liquid Feedback platform [2]. Similar initiatives have subsequently been undertaken by the Demoex Party in Sweden, the Internet Party in Spain, and the Net Party in Argentina. There are many potential benefits of a transitive delegation mechanism. Par- ticipation may improve in quantity for several reasons. The system is easy to use and understand, induces low barriers to participation, and is inherently egalitar- ian: there is no distinction between voters and representatives; every one is both a voter and a delegator. Participation may also improve in quality due to the flexibility to choose different forms of participation: voters can chose to be active participants on topics they are comfortable with or delegate on topics they are arXiv:2105.05142v1 [cs.GT] 11 May 2021 less comfortable with. Accountability may improve due to the transparent na- ture of the mechanism and because there is a demonstrable line of responsibility between a delegated proxy and its delegators. The quality of decision making may improve via a specialization to delegated experts and a reduction in induced costs, such as the duplication of resources. Our objective here is not to evaluate such claimed benefits, but we refer the reader to [1, 2, 4, 11, 13] for detailed discussions on the motivations underlying liquid democracy. Rather, our focus is to quantitatively measure the performance of liquid democracy in an idealized setting. Specifically, can equilibria in these 2 J. Noel et al. voting mechanisms provide high social welfare? That is, we study the price of stability of liquid democracy. 1.1 Background As stated, vote delegation lies at the heart of liquid democracy. Furthermore, vote delegation in liquid democracy has several fundamental characteristics: option- ality, retractability, partitionability, and transitivity. So let us begin by defining these concepts and tracing their origins [2, 1]. The notion of optional delegation proffers voters the choice of direct participation (voting themselves/choosing to abstain) or indirect participation (delegating their vote). This idea dates back over a century to the work of Charles Dodgson on parliamentary representation [9].3 Miller [17] proposed that delegations be retractable and partitionable. The former allows for delegation assignments to be time-sensitive and reversible. The latter allows a voter to select different delegates for different policy decisions.4 Finally, transitive delegation is due to Ford [11]. This allows a proxy to themselves delegate its vote and all its delegated votes. This concept is central to liquid democracy. Indeed, if an agent is better served by delegating her vote to a more informed proxy it would be perverse to prohibit that proxy from re-delegating that vote to an even more informed proxy. Moreover, such transitivity is neces- sary should circumstances arise causing the proxy to be unable to vote. It also reduces the duplication of efforts involved in voting. As noted in the sixties by Tullock [18], the development of the computer opened up the possibility of large proxy voting systems. Indeed, with the internet and modern security technologies, liquid democracy is inherently practical; see Lumphier [16]. There has been a flurry of interest in liquid democracy from the AI com- munity. This is illustrated by the large range of recent papers on the topic; see, for example, [5, 6, 7, 8, 12, 13, 14, 15, 19]. Most directly related to our work is the game theoretic model of liquid democracy studied by Escoffier et al. [10]. (A related game-theoretic model was also investigated by Bloembergen et al. [3].) Indeed, our motivation is an open question posed by Escoffier et al. [10]: are price of anarchy type results obtainable for their model of liquid democracy? We will answer this question for a generalization of their model. 1.2 Contributions In Section 2, we will see that vote delegation has a natural representation in terms of a directed graph called the delegation graph. If each agent i has a 3 Dodgson was a parson and a mathematician but, as the author of \Alice in Won- derland", is more familiarly known by his nom de plume, Lewis Carroll. 4 This option is particularly useful where potential delegates may have assorted com- petencies. For example, Alice may prefer to delegate to the Hatter on matters concerning tea-blending but to the Queen of Hearts on matters concerning horticulture. Liquid Democracy has Bicriteria Guarantees 3 utility of uij 2 [0; 1] when agent j votes as her delegate then a game, called the liquid democracy game, is induced on the delegation graph. We study the welfare ratio in the liquid democracy game, which compares the social welfare of an equilibrium to the welfare of the optimal solution. Pure strategy Nash equilibria need not exist in the liquid democracy game, so we focus on mixed strategy Nash equilibria. Our main result, given in Section 3 is that bicriteria approximation guarantees (for social welfare and rationality) exist in the game. Theorem 1 For all 2 [0; 1], and for any instance of the liquid democracy game, there exists an -Nash equilibrium with social welfare at least · OPT. Theorem 1 is tight: the stated bicriteria guarantees cannot be improved. Theorem 2 For all 2 [0; 1], there exist instances such that any -Nash equilibrium has welfare at most · OPT +γ for any γ > 0 Theorems 1 and 2 imply that the price of stability for -Nash equilibria is . An important consequence of Theorem 1 is that strong approximation guarantees can simultaneously be obtained for both social welfare and rationality. 1 Specifically, setting = 2 gives factor 2 approximation guarantees for each cri- teria. 1 Corollary 3 For any instance of the liquid democracy game, there exists a 2 - 1 Nash equilibrium with welfare at least 2 · OPT. 2 A Model of Liquid Democracy In this section, we present the liquid democracy game. This game generalizes the game-theoretic model studied by Escoffier et al. [10]. 2.1 The Delegation Graph In liquid democracy each agent has three strategies: she can abstain, vote herself, or delegate her vote to another agent. So we can represent an instance by a directed network G = (V; A) called the delegation graph. There is a vertex in V = f1; ··· ; ng for each agent. To define the sets of arcs, there are three possibilities. First, if agent i votes herself the delegation graph contains a self-loop (i; i). Second, if agent i delegates her vote to agent j 6= i then there is an arc (i; j) in G. Third, if agent i abstains then the vertex i has out-degree zero. Now, because the out-degree of each vertex is at most one, the delegation graph G is a 1-forest. That is, each component of G is an arborescence plus at most one arc. In particular, each component is either an arborescence and, thus, contains no cycle or contains exactly one directed cycle (called a delegation cycle). In the former case, the component contains one sink node corresponding to an abstaining voter. In the latter case, if the delegation cycle is a self-loop the component contains exactly one voter called a guru; if the delegation cycle 4 J. Noel et al. Fig. 1. A delegation graph. has length at least two then the component contains no voters. An example of a delegation graph is shown in Figure 1. Observe that, by the transitivity of delegations, if an agent i is in a component containing a guru g then that guru will cast a vote on i's behalf. On the other hand, if agent i is in a component without a guru (that is, with either a sink node or a cycle of length at least two) then no vote will be cast on i's behalf. We denote the guru j representing agent i by g(i) = j if it exists (we write g(i) = ; otherwise). Furthermore, its easy to find g(i): simply apply path traversal starting at vertex i in the delegation graph. For example, in Figure 1 two components contain a guru. Agent 4 is the guru of agents 1; 2; 3 and itself; agent 9 is the guru only for itself. The vertices in the remaining three components have no gurus. There are two components with delegation cycles, namely f(10; 11); (11; 10)g and f(5; 6); (6; 7); (7; 5)g. The final component also contains no guru as agent 12 is a sink node and thus abstains. 2.2 The Liquid Democracy Game The game theoretic model we study is a generalization of the model of Escoffier et al. [10]. A pure strategy si for agent i corresponds to the selection of at most one outgoing arc.

Load more