Piotr Faliszewski,Edith Hemaspaandra,Lane A. Hemaspaandra
Abstract:We study the complexity of influencing elections through bribery: How computationally complex is it for an external actor to determine whether by a certain amount of bribing voters a specified candidate can be made the election's winner? We study this problem for election systems as varied as scoring protocols and Dodgson voting, and in a variety of settings regarding homogeneous-vs.-nonhomogeneous electorate bribability, bounded-size-vs.-arbitrary-sized candidate sets, weighted-vs.-unweighted voters, and succinct-vs.-nonsuccinct input specification. We obtain both polynomial-time bribery algorithms and proofs of the intractability of bribery, and indeed our results show that the complexity of bribery is extremely sensitive to the setting. For example, we find settings in which bribery is NP-complete but manipulation (by voters) is in P, and we find settings in which bribing weighted voters is NP-complete but bribing voters with individual bribe thresholds is in P. For the broad class of elections (including plurality, Borda, k-approval, and veto) known as scoring protocols, we prove a dichotomy result for bribery of weighted voters: We find a simple-to-evaluate condition that classifies every case as either NP-complete or in P.
What problem does this paper attempt to address?
This paper attempts to address the computational complexity of bribery in elections. Specifically, the authors explore the computational difficulty for an external actor to make a specific candidate the winner of an election by changing the preferences of a certain number of voters. The research covers a variety of election systems, such as scoring protocols and Dodgson voting, and is analyzed under different settings, such as the homogeneity and heterogeneity of the voter group, whether the set size of candidates is limited or not, whether voters have weights, and the simplicity of input specifications.
### Main Problems of the Paper
The core problem of the paper is: determining the computational complexity of influencing election results by bribing voters. Specifically, the following aspects are studied:
1. **Diversity of Election Systems**: A variety of election systems from scoring protocols to Dodgson voting are studied.
2. **Characteristics of Voter Groups**: The homogeneity and heterogeneity of voter groups are considered.
3. **Set Size of Candidates**: Situations where the number of candidates is limited and of arbitrary size are explored.
4. **Weights of Voters**: The impact of whether voters have weights is analyzed.
5. **Simplicity of Input Specifications**: The influence of simple and non - simple representations of input specifications on the problem complexity is studied.
### Main Findings
- **Polynomial - Time Algorithms and NP - Completeness**: The authors obtained polynomial - time bribery algorithms and proved that the bribery problem is NP - complete in certain cases.
- **Sensitivity Analysis**: The results show that the complexity of bribery is very sensitive to settings. For example, in some cases, bribery is NP - complete, but manipulation (voter behavior) is in class P; while in other cases, bribing weighted voters is NP - complete, but bribing voters with individual bribery thresholds is in class P.
- **Dichotomy Theorem for Scoring Protocols**: For scoring protocols including majority voting, Borda count, k - approval, and veto, the authors proved a dichotomy theorem on weighted - voter bribery, providing a simple condition to classify each case as NP - complete or P - class.
### Examples
- **Weighted Majority Voting**: Bribery is in class P, but if voters have price tags, the problem becomes NP - complete.
- **Approval Voting**: The manipulation problem is clearly in class P, but the bribery problem is NP - complete. However, when the bribery cost function is more local, the complexity of approval voting returns to class P.
### Conclusion
Through detailed analysis and proof, the paper shows that the computational complexity of bribery in elections highly depends on the specific election system and settings. These results not only provide a theoretical basis for understanding the vulnerability of election systems but also offer guidance for designing more robust election mechanisms.