Abstract:Sortition, the random selection of political representatives, is increasingly being used around the world to choose participants of deliberative processes like Citizens' Assemblies. Motivated by sortition's practical importance, there has been a recent flurry of research on sortition algorithms, whose task it is to select a panel from among a pool of volunteers. This panel must satisfy quotas enforcing representation of key population subgroups. Past work has contributed an algorithmic approach for fulfilling this task while ensuring that volunteers' chances of selection are maximally equal, as measured by any convex equality objective. The question, then, is: which equality objective is the right one? Past work has mainly studied the objectives Minimax and Leximin, which respectively minimize the maximum and maximize the minimum chance of selection given to any volunteer. Recent work showed that both of these objectives have key weaknesses: Minimax is highly robust to manipulation but is arbitrarily unfair; oppositely, Leximin is highly fair but arbitrarily manipulable. In light of this gap, we propose a new equality objective, Goldilocks, that aims to achieve these ideals simultaneously by ensuring that no volunteer receives too little or too much chance of selection. We theoretically bound the extent to which Goldilocks achieves these ideals, finding that in an important sense, Goldilocks recovers among the best available solutions in a given instance. We then extend our bounds to the case where the output of Goldilocks is transformed to achieve a third goal, Transparency. Our empirical analysis of Goldilocks in real data is even more promising: we find that this objective achieves nearly instance-optimal minimum and maximum selection probabilities simultaneously in most real instances -- an outcome not even guaranteed to be possible for any algorithm.

Unequal Peace

The Peace Mediator Effect

Single Equalizer Strategy with no Information Transfer for Conflict Escalation

Peace through bribing

Equality, equity and incentives: An experiment

Adaptive role switching promotes fairness in networked ultimatum game

The Peace Mediator effect: Heterogeneous agents can foster consensus in continuous opinion models

Heterogenous Allocation of Chips Promotes Fairness in the Ultimatum Game

Can money buy peace? Efficiency of side‐payments to avoid costly conflicts

Asking for less (but receiving more): Women avoid impasses and outperform men when negotiators have weak alternatives.

Optimally Biased Tullock Contests

Fair, Manipulation-Robust, and Transparent Sortition

Egalitarian Resource Sharing Over Multiple Rounds

Competitive Equilibria with Unequal Budgets: Supporting Arbitrary Pareto Optimal Allocations

Optimal Mediation Mechanisms in Bilateral Trade

Promoting Fair Proposers, Fair Responders or Both? Cost-Efficient Interference in the Spatial Ultimatum Game

A fair procedure in a marriage market

Markets and Economies with Information Frictions

Mediation, Military, and Money: The Promises and Pitfalls of Outside Interventions to End Armed Conflicts

Tullock contest alliances with proportional prize-sharing agreements: private collective action mechanisms?

Splitting The Difference In Incomplete‐Information Bargaining: Theory And Widespread Evidence From The Field