Abstract:Voting mechanisms are widely accepted and used methods for decentralized decision-making. Ensuring the acceptance of the voting mechanism's outcome is a crucial characteristic of robust voting systems. Consider this scenario: A group of individuals wants to choose an option from a set of alternatives without requiring an identification or proof-of-personhood system. Moreover, they want to implement utilitarianism as their selection criteria. In such a case, players could submit votes multiple times using dummy accounts, commonly known as a Sybil attack (SA), which presents a challenge for decentralized organizations. Is there a voting mechanism that always prevents players from benefiting by casting votes multiple times (SA-proof) while also selecting the alternative that maximizes the added valuations of all players (efficient)? One-person-one-vote is neither SA-proof nor efficient. Coin voting is SA-proof but not efficient. Quadratic voting is efficient but not SA-proof. This study uses Bayesian mechanism design to propose a solution. The mechanism's structure is as follows: Players make wealth deposits to indicate the strength of their preference for each alternative. Each player then receives an amount based on their deposit and the voting outcome. The proposed mechanism relies on two main concepts: 1) Transfers are influenced by the outcome in a way that each player's optimal action depends only on individual preferences and the number of alternatives; 2) A player who votes through multiple accounts slightly reduces the expected utility of all players more than the individual benefit gained. This study demonstrates that if players are risk-neutral and each player has private information about their preferences and beliefs, then the mechanism is SA-proof and efficient. This research provides new insights into the design of more robust decentralized decision-making mechanisms.

Swap Bribery

Nonuniform Bribery

Local Distance Constrained Bribery in Voting

On the Robustness of Winners: Counting Briberies in Elections

How Hard Is Bribery in Elections?

The Complexity of Online Bribery in Sequential Elections

Bribery Can Get Harder in Structured Multiwinner Approval Election

The Complexity of Online Bribery in Sequential Elections (Extended Abstract)

Complexity of Manipulation, Bribery, and Campaign Management in Bucklin and Fallback Voting

On the Complexity of Destructive Bribery in Approval-Based Multi-winner Voting

Computation and Bribery of Voting Power in Delegative Simple Games

Often harder than in the Constructive Case: Destructive Bribery in CP-nets

The Complexity of Manipulating $k$-Approval Elections

On the Hardness of Bribery Variants in Voting with CP-Nets

Bayesian Vote Manipulation: Optimal Strategies and Impact on Welfare

Strategic Voting in the Context of Negotiating Teams

Abductive and Contrastive Explanations for Scoring Rules in Voting

Using Weighted Matching to Solve 2-Approval/Veto Control and Bribery

Bribery in Rating Systems: A Game-Theoretic Perspective

An Efficient and Sybil Attack Resistant Voting Mechanism

Complexity Dichotomies for Unweighted Scoring Rules