Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Main Author: Endriss, Ulle
Format: Preprint
Published: 2025
Subjects:
Online Access:https://arxiv.org/abs/2512.24467
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
_version_ 1866915700983988224
author Endriss, Ulle
author_facet Endriss, Ulle
contents Given the stated preferences of several people over a number of proposals regarding public policy initiatives, some of those proposals might be judged to be more ``divisive'' than others. When designing online participatory platforms to support digital democracy initiatives enabling citizens to deliberate over such proposals, we might wish to equip those platforms with the functionality to retrieve the most divisive proposals currently under discussion. Such a service would be useful for analysing the progress of deliberation and steering discussion towards issues that still require further debate. Guided by this use case, we explore possibilities for providing a clear definition of what it means to select a set of most divisive proposals on the basis of people's stated preferences over proposals. Then, employing the axiomatic method familiar from social choice theory, we show that the task of selecting the most divisive proposals in a manner that satisfies certain seemingly mild normative requirements faces a number of fundamental difficulties.
format Preprint
id arxiv_https___arxiv_org_abs_2512_24467
institution arXiv
publishDate 2025
record_format arxiv
spellingShingle On the Difficulty of Measuring Divisiveness of Proposals under Ranked Preferences
Endriss, Ulle
Computer Science and Game Theory
Given the stated preferences of several people over a number of proposals regarding public policy initiatives, some of those proposals might be judged to be more ``divisive'' than others. When designing online participatory platforms to support digital democracy initiatives enabling citizens to deliberate over such proposals, we might wish to equip those platforms with the functionality to retrieve the most divisive proposals currently under discussion. Such a service would be useful for analysing the progress of deliberation and steering discussion towards issues that still require further debate. Guided by this use case, we explore possibilities for providing a clear definition of what it means to select a set of most divisive proposals on the basis of people's stated preferences over proposals. Then, employing the axiomatic method familiar from social choice theory, we show that the task of selecting the most divisive proposals in a manner that satisfies certain seemingly mild normative requirements faces a number of fundamental difficulties.
title On the Difficulty of Measuring Divisiveness of Proposals under Ranked Preferences
topic Computer Science and Game Theory
url https://arxiv.org/abs/2512.24467