Unrestricted domain: Difference between revisions

(Clarifying the prose a bit (especially the #Spatial modeling section), and making some of the links a bit clearer)
 
(4 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown)
Line 7:
== Spatial modeling ==
{{main|Spatial models of voting}}
{{seealso|Spatial models of voting}}
{{seealso|Limitations of spatial models of voting}}
}}
{{seealso|Limitations of spatial models of voting
}}
When voting theorists create [[spatial models of voting]], they map voter opinions regarding different topics onto different dimensions in space. The most readily understood models have one, two, or three dimensions, but more dimensions are possible.
 
Mapping voter opinion to multi-dimensional space is tricky. When theorists choose four or more dimensions for their models, the result is difficult to visualize in a three-dimensional space. Moreover, the space of voter opinions imposes fundamental limitations on the set of allowed elections, depending on the number of candidates, as there may be insufficient room in the space for all ranked ballots to occur. This geometric result implies that violations of unrestricted domain are common in low-dimensional simulations involving many candidates, with the vast majority of election scenarios being impossible to arise.{{Citation needed|reason="Impossible"For isexample, for a pretty2-dimensional boldEuclidean claimspatial model with 6 candidates, andthere needsare <math>6! = 720</math> possible rankings, but it is geometrically impossible to beconstruct backeda upvoter withand evidence.candidate distribution Alsowhich produces more than 101 distinct ballots, themeaning claimat thatleast "violations86% of unrestrictedballots domainwill arenever commonemerge in low-dimensionalany simulations"voter alsoor needscandidate citationdistribution.}} CertainElections votinginvolving methodsmore withthan arbitrary101 ballotunique restrictionsballots mayare beimpossible fundamentallyin unablesuch toa capturescenario, and these correspond to the informationvast availablemajority inof anpossible electorateelections. See [[space of possible elections]] and [[limitations of spatial models of voting]] for more details.
 
Conversely, notwithstanding any assumptions of a spatial model, certain voting methods with arbitrary ballot restrictions may be fundamentally unable to capture the information available in an electorate.
 
==Ranking==
{{main|Ranked ballot}}
{{seealso|Ranked ballot}}
}}
With unrestricted domain, the social welfare function accounts for all preferences among all voters to yield a unique and complete ranking of societal choices. Thus, the voting mechanism must account for all individual preferences, it must do so in a manner that results in a complete ranking of preferences for society, and it must deterministically provide the same ranking each time voters' preferences are presented the same way.
 
== Relation to other social choice theorems==
{{seealso|Arrow's impossibility theorem}}
{{seealso|Gibbard–Satterthwaite theorem}}
}}
{{seealso|Gibbard–SatterthwaiteSocial theoremwelfare function}}
}}
{{seealso|Social welfare function
}}
It was stated by Kenneth Arrow as part of his [[Arrow's impossibility theorem|impossibility theorem]], and it is such a basic criterion that it's satisfied by all non-random ranked systems. However, since it was defined by Kenneth Arrow before there had been theoretical analysis of rated voting systems, it does not apply to rated ballots, and so all rated systems technically violate universality. This is why some rated systems, such as [[MCA|MCA-P]], can appear to violate Arrow's theorem by satisfying other criteria he defined such as [[monotonicity]] and [[independence of irrelevant alternatives]]. When not combined with (ranked) universality, those other criteria are not incompatible.
 
Line 35 ⟶ 31:
 
==Examples of restricted domains==
{{Seealso|Median voter theory}}
[[Duncan Black]] defined a restriction to domains of social choice functions called ''"single-peaked preferences"''. Under this principle, all of the choices have a predetermined position along a line, giving them a linear ordering. Every voter has some special place hethey likeslike best along that line. HisTheir ordering of the choices is determined by theirthe distances from thatthe spot defined by the voter's preference. For example, if voting on where to set the volume for music, it would be reasonable to assume that each voter had their own ideal volume preference and that as the volume got progressively too loud or too quiet they would be increasingly dissatisfied. Black proved (see "[[Median voter theory|proved]]") that by replacing unrestricted domain with single-peaked preferences in Arrow's theorem removes the impossibility: there are Pareto-efficient non-dictatorships that satisfy the "[[independence of irrelevant alternatives]]" criterion.
}}
[[Duncan Black]] defined a restriction to domains of social choice functions called ''"single-peaked preferences"''. Under this principle, all of the choices have a predetermined position along a line, giving them a linear ordering. Every voter has some special place he likes best along that line. His ordering of the choices is determined by their distances from that spot. For example, if voting on where to set the volume for music, it would be reasonable to assume that each voter had their own ideal volume preference and that as the volume got progressively too loud or too quiet they would be increasingly dissatisfied. Black [[Median voter theory|proved]] that by replacing unrestricted domain with single-peaked preferences in Arrow's theorem removes the impossibility: there are Pareto-efficient non-dictatorships that satisfy the "[[independence of irrelevant alternatives]]" criterion.
 
==References==
295

edits