Abstract:We revisit the recent breakthrough result of Gkatzelis et al. on (single-winner) metric voting, which showed that the optimal distortion of 3 can be achieved by a mechanism called Plurality Matching. The rule picks an arbitrary candidate for whom a certain candidate-specific bipartite graph contains a perfect matching, and thus, it is not neutral (i.e, symmetric with respect to candidates). Subsequently, a much simpler rule called Plurality Veto was shown to achieve distortion 3 as well. This rule only constructs such a matching implicitly but the winner depends on the order that voters are processed, and thus, it is not anonymous (i.e., symmetric with respect to voters). We provide an intuitive interpretation of this matching by generalizing the classical notion of the (proportional) veto core in social choice theory. This interpretation opens up a number of immediate consequences. Previous methods for electing a candidate from the veto core can be interpreted simply as matching algorithms. Different election methods realize different matchings, in turn leading to different sets of candidates as winners. For a broad generalization of the veto core, we show that the generalized veto core is equal to the set of candidates who can emerge as winners under a natural class of matching algorithms reminiscent of Serial Dictatorship. Extending these matching algorithms into continuous time, we obtain a highly practical voting rule with optimal distortion 3, which is also intuitive and easy to explain: Each candidate starts off with public support equal to his plurality score. From time 0 to 1, every voter continuously brings down, at rate 1, the support of her bottom choice among not-yet-eliminated candidates. A candidate is eliminated if he is opposed by a voter after his support reaches 0. On top of being anonymous and neutral, this rule satisfies many other axioms desirable in practice.

The Borda rule is also intended for dishonest men

The Welfare Consequences of Strategic Voting in Two Commonly Used Parliamentary Agendas

The welfare consequences of strategic behaviour under approval and plurality voting

B e ha v ioural heterogeneit y un d er appro va land plurality voting

Non-Borda elections under relaxed IIA conditions

A Welfarist Critique of Social Choice Theory: Interpersonal Comparisons in the Theory of Voting

Good election rules with more than three candidates are Borda

Distortion Under Public-Spirited Voting

The Distortion of Binomial Voting Defies Expectation

Strategic Voting and the Degree of Path-Dependence

Representing the Insincere: Strategically Robust Proportional Representation

Bayesian Vote Manipulation: Optimal Strategies and Impact on Welfare

The Wisdom of Strategic Voting

Abductive and Contrastive Explanations for Scoring Rules in Voting

Gibbard-Satterthwaite Success Stories and Obvious Strategyproofness

Beyond the worst case: Distortion in impartial culture electorates

Epistemic selection of costly alternatives: the case of participatory budgeting

Is it ever safe to vote strategically?

Equitable, neutral, and efficient voting rules

Generalized Veto Core and a Practical Voting Rule with Optimal Metric Distortion