Voting for movies: the anatomy of a recommender system
Proceedings of the third annual conference on Autonomous Agents
Rank aggregation methods for the Web
Proceedings of the 10th international conference on World Wide Web
Computers and Intractability: A Guide to the Theory of NP-Completeness
Computers and Intractability: A Guide to the Theory of NP-Completeness
A heuristic technique for multi-agent planning
Annals of Mathematics and Artificial Intelligence
When are elections with few candidates hard to manipulate?
Journal of the ACM (JACM)
Anyone but him: The complexity of precluding an alternative
Artificial Intelligence
Llull and Copeland voting computationally resist bribery and constructive control
Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research
How hard is bribery in elections?
Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research
Control complexity in fallback voting
CATS '10 Proceedings of the Sixteenth Symposium on Computing: the Australasian Theory - Volume 109
Control complexity in bucklin, fallback, and plurality voting: an experimental approach
SEA'12 Proceedings of the 11th international conference on Experimental Algorithms
Proceedings of the 2013 international conference on Autonomous agents and multi-agent systems
Control in the presence of manipulators: cooperative and competitive cases
IJCAI'13 Proceedings of the Twenty-Third international joint conference on Artificial Intelligence
Control complexity of schulze voting
IJCAI'13 Proceedings of the Twenty-Third international joint conference on Artificial Intelligence
Normalized Range Voting Broadly Resists Control
Theory of Computing Systems
Annals of Mathematics and Artificial Intelligence
Hi-index | 0.00 |
Electoral control models ways of changing the outcome of an election via such actions as adding/deleting/partitioning either candidates or voters. These actions modify an election's participation structure and aim at either making a favorite candidate win ("constructive control") or prevent a despised candidate from winning ("destructive control"). To protect elections from such control attempts, computational complexity has been used to show that electoral control, though not impossible, is computationally prohibitive. Recently, Erdélyi and Rothe [10] proved that Brams and Sanver's fallback voting [5], a hybrid voting system that combines Bucklin with approval voting, is resistant to each of the standard types of control except five types of voter control. They proved that fallback voting is vulnerable to two of those control types, leaving the other three cases open. We solve these three open problems, thus showing that fallback voting is resistant to all standard types of control by partition of voters---which is a particularly important and well-motivated control type, as it models "two-district gerrymandering." Hence, fallback voting is not only fully resistant to candidate control [10] but also fully resistant to constructive control, and it displays the broadest resistance to control currently known to hold among natural voting systems with a polynomial-time winner problem. We also show that Bucklin voting behaves almost as good in terms of control resistance. Each resistance for Bucklin voting strengthens the corresponding control resistance for fallback voting.