Abstract:The Hotelling-Downs model is a natural and appealing model for understanding strategic positioning by candidates in elections. In this model, voters are distributed on a line, representing their ideological position on an issue. Each candidate then chooses as a strategy a position on the line to maximize her vote share. Each voter votes for the nearest candidate, closest to their ideological position. This sets up a game between the candidates, and we study pure Nash equilibria in this game. The model and its variants are an important tool in political economics, and are studied widely in computational social choice as well.
Despite the interest and practical relevance, most prior work focuses on the existence and properties of pure Nash equilibria in this model, ignoring computational issues. Our work gives algorithms for computing pure Nash equilibria in the basic model. We give three algorithms, depending on whether the distribution of voters is continuous or discrete, and similarly, whether the possible candidate positions are continuous or discrete. In each case, our algorithms return either an exact equilibrium or one arbitrarily close to exact, assuming existence. We believe our work will be useful, and may prompt interest, in computing equilibria in the wide variety of extensions of the basic model as well.
What problem does this paper attempt to address?
The problem that this paper attempts to solve is to calculate the Pure Nash Equilibrium in the Hotelling - Downs model. Specifically, the Hotelling - Downs model is a natural and appealing model for understanding the strategic positioning of candidates in elections. In this model, voters are distributed along a line, representing their ideological stances on an issue. Each candidate chooses a position to maximize her vote share, and each voter will vote for the candidate closest to them.
Although this model and its variants have been widely studied in political economy and computational social science, most previous work has mainly focused on the existence and properties of the Pure Nash Equilibrium, ignoring the computational problem. The authors of this paper propose an algorithm to calculate the Pure Nash Equilibrium in the basic model and provide three different algorithms according to the possible positions of candidates (continuous or discrete) and the distribution of voters (continuous or discrete). These algorithms can return the exact equilibrium or a close - to - exact equilibrium when an equilibrium exists.
The following are the main contributions of this paper:
1. **Discrete Candidate Positions**: If the set of candidate positions \(P_c\) is discrete, the authors provide a polynomial - time algorithm to calculate the exact equilibrium.
2. **Continuous Candidate and Voter Positions**: If both \(P_c\) and \(P_v\) are continuous intervals, the authors provide an approximation algorithm that returns a \(4\epsilon\)-equilibrium when an \(\epsilon\)-equilibrium exists.
3. **Discrete Voter Positions and Continuous Candidate Positions**: For the case where the set of voter positions \(P_v\) is a finite set and the set of candidate positions \(P_c\) is a continuous interval, the authors provide a polynomial - time algorithm to determine whether an exact equilibrium exists and prove that if an equilibrium exists, all candidates can be located at rational points.
Through these algorithms, the authors hope that their work can promote the interest and application of calculating equilibria in various extended models.
### Formula Summary
1. **Candidate's Utility Function**:
Given a strategy profile \(S\) and a candidate's position \(s\in S\), the candidate's utility is:
\[
u(s, S):=\frac{F(\mu(s_l, s), \mu(s, s_r)) - F(\mu(s_l, s), \mu(s_l, s))}{2}-\frac{F(\mu(s, s_r), \mu(s, s_r))}{2}
\]
where \(s_l\) and \(s_r\) are the adjacent candidate positions to the left and right of \(s\), respectively.
2. **Utility of a New Candidate**:
For a new position \(s\) not in \(S\), the utility of the new candidate is:
\[
u_{\text{new}}(s, S)=u(s, S\cup\{s\})
\]
3. **Best Response and Best Utility within an Interval**:
For the case where existing candidates are located at \(p\) and \(q\), the best response and best utility of a candidate within \((p, q)\cap P_c\) are:
\[
\text{int - r}(p, q)=\arg\max_{z\in(p, q)\cap P_c}u_{\text{new}}(z,\{p, q\})
\]
\[
\text{int - u}(p, q)=\max_{z\in(p, q)\cap P_c}u_{\text{new}}(z,\{p, q\})
\]
4. **Definition of \(\epsilon\)-equilibrium**:
A strategy profile \(S=(s_1, s_2,\ldots, s_m)\) is an \(\epsilon\)-equilibrium if and only if for any candidate \(i\in