Abstract:We consider the following Colonel Blotto game between parties $P_1$ and $P_A.$ $P_1$ deploys a non negative number of troops across $J$ battlefields, while $P_A$ chooses $K,$ $K < J,$ battlefields to remove all of $P_1$'s troops from the chosen battlefields. $P_1$ has the objective of maximizing the number of surviving troops while $P_A$ wants to minimize it. Drawing an analogy with ballot stuffing by a party contesting an election and the countermeasures by the Election Commission to negate that, we call this the Ballot Stuffing Game. For this zero-sum resource allocation game, we obtain the set of Nash equilibria as a solution to a convex combinatorial optimization problem. We analyze this optimization problem and obtain insights into the several non trivial features of the equilibrium behavior. These features in turn allows to describe the structure of the solutions and efficient algorithms to obtain then. The model is described as ballot stuffing game in a plebiscite but has applications in security and auditing games. The results are extended to a parliamentary election model. Numerical examples illustrate applications of the game.
What problem does this paper attempt to address?
The problem that this paper attempts to solve is how, during the election process and under the condition of asymmetric resource allocation, to optimize the adversarial strategies between ballot stuffing and countermeasures (such as deploying ballot monitors) through a game - theory model. Specifically:
1. **Problem Background**:
- The paper constructs a new variant of the Colonel Blotto game - the Ballot Stuffing Game. One side (P1) attempts to increase its chances of winning through ballot stuffing, while the other side (PA, the election commission) offsets the impact of these illegal ballots by deploying ballot monitors at some polling stations.
- This game is a zero - sum game, with the goal of maximizing or minimizing the number of un - offset ballots.
2. **Core Problems**:
- **P1's Strategy**: P1 needs to decide how many resources to allocate to each polling station for ballot stuffing in order to maximize its total number of votes, while being subject to budget constraints.
- **PA's Strategy**: PA needs to choose which polling stations to deploy ballot monitors in order to minimize P1's effective number of votes.
- **Nash Equilibrium**: The paper aims to find the Nash equilibrium in this game, that is, neither side can obtain a better result by unilaterally changing its own strategy given the other side's strategy.
3. **Specific Problem Description**:
- P1 can arbitrarily allocate its limited resources (the number of ballot - stuffing ballots) among J polling stations, and the cost of fraud at each polling station is different.
- PA can choose K polling stations (K < J) to deploy ballot monitors, completely offsetting all of P1's fraudulent ballots at these polling stations.
- The goal is to find the best combination of strategies for both sides under this condition of asymmetric resource allocation.
4. **Application Areas**:
- This model is not only applicable to election scenarios but can also be extended to other security and audit games, such as market strategies, network security, etc.
In summary, the core problem of this paper is to study, through mathematical modeling and optimization methods, how to find the optimal adversarial strategies between ballot stuffing and countermeasures under the condition of asymmetric resource allocation and solve the corresponding Nash equilibrium.
### Formula Representation
- P1's total budget is \( G \), and the cost - of - fraud function for each polling station \( j \) is \( g_j(z_j) \), where \( z_j \) is the number of fraudulent ballots at the \( j \) - th polling station.
- PA can choose \( K \) polling stations to deploy ballot monitors, and \( y_j \) is used to represent whether to deploy a ballot monitor at the \( j \) - th polling station (\( y_j = 1 \) represents deployment, \( y_j = 0 \) represents no deployment).
- The optimization problem of Nash equilibrium can be represented as:
\[
\begin{aligned}
& \text{P1:} & \max_z & \quad \phi(z, y) \\
& & \text{s.t.} & \quad \sum_{j = 1}^J g_j(z_j)\leq G, \\
& & & \quad 0\leq z_j \quad \forall j,
\end{aligned}
\]
\[
\begin{aligned}
& \text{PA:} & \min_y & \quad \phi(z, y) \\
& & \text{s.t.} & \quad \sum_{j = 1}^J y_j = K, \\
& & & \quad y_j\in\{0, 1\} \quad \forall j.
\end{aligned}
\]
where \( \phi(z, y) \) represents the probability that P1 wins the election given \( z \) and \( y \).
By solving the above optimization problems, the paper finds the Nash equilibrium and proposes effective algorithms to calculate these equilibrium strategies.