Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Main Authors: Chebotarev, Pavel, Afonkin, Vadim
Format: Preprint
Published: 2023
Subjects:
Online Access:https://arxiv.org/abs/2401.00592
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
_version_ 1866917158400819200
author Chebotarev, Pavel
Afonkin, Vadim
author_facet Chebotarev, Pavel
Afonkin, Vadim
contents Within the ViSE (Voting in Stochastic Environment) model, we study the effectiveness of majority voting in various environments. As shown by the pit-of-losses paradox identified in previous work, majority decisions in apparently hostile environments tend to reduce the capital of society. In such cases, the simple social decision rule of ``rejecting all proposals without voting'' outperforms majority voting. In this paper, we identify another pit of losses appearing in favorable environments; here, the simple social decision rule of ``accepting all proposals without voting'' is superior to majority voting. We prove that, under a version of simple majority called symmetrized majority and under the antisymmetry of the voting body, this second pit of losses is a mirror image of the one arising in hostile environments, and we explain this phenomenon. Technically, we consider a voting society consisting of individualists who support all proposals that increase their personal capital and a group (or groups) whose members vote to increase their group's wealth. According to the key lemma, the expected capital gain of each agent under the social decision rule when the random gain generator is $X$ with mean $μ>0$ exceeds their expected gain under the reflected generator $-X$ by exactly $μ$. This extends to location-scale families of generators with distributions symmetric about their mean. This result reveals a mirror symmetry in the performance of the symmetrized majority rule relative to a baseline rule. The baseline rule accepts all proposals in favorable environments and rejects them in unfavorable (hostile) ones.
format Preprint
id arxiv_https___arxiv_org_abs_2401_00592
institution arXiv
publishDate 2023
record_format arxiv
spellingShingle Majority voting is not good for heaven or hell, with mirrored performance
Chebotarev, Pavel
Afonkin, Vadim
Physics and Society
Computer Science and Game Theory
Optimization and Control
91B70, 91B12, 91B14, 91B15, 90C40
Within the ViSE (Voting in Stochastic Environment) model, we study the effectiveness of majority voting in various environments. As shown by the pit-of-losses paradox identified in previous work, majority decisions in apparently hostile environments tend to reduce the capital of society. In such cases, the simple social decision rule of ``rejecting all proposals without voting'' outperforms majority voting. In this paper, we identify another pit of losses appearing in favorable environments; here, the simple social decision rule of ``accepting all proposals without voting'' is superior to majority voting. We prove that, under a version of simple majority called symmetrized majority and under the antisymmetry of the voting body, this second pit of losses is a mirror image of the one arising in hostile environments, and we explain this phenomenon. Technically, we consider a voting society consisting of individualists who support all proposals that increase their personal capital and a group (or groups) whose members vote to increase their group's wealth. According to the key lemma, the expected capital gain of each agent under the social decision rule when the random gain generator is $X$ with mean $μ>0$ exceeds their expected gain under the reflected generator $-X$ by exactly $μ$. This extends to location-scale families of generators with distributions symmetric about their mean. This result reveals a mirror symmetry in the performance of the symmetrized majority rule relative to a baseline rule. The baseline rule accepts all proposals in favorable environments and rejects them in unfavorable (hostile) ones.
title Majority voting is not good for heaven or hell, with mirrored performance
topic Physics and Society
Computer Science and Game Theory
Optimization and Control
91B70, 91B12, 91B14, 91B15, 90C40
url https://arxiv.org/abs/2401.00592