REVIEW 1 cited by
Fixed-budget and Multiple-issue Quadratic Voting
Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.
This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.
SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event
T0 review · schema-true
One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.
pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp
abstract
Quadratic Voting (QV) is a social choice mechanism that addresses the "tyranny of the majority" of one-person-one-vote mechanisms. Agents express not only their preference ordering but also their preference intensity by purchasing $x$ votes at a cost of $x^2$. Although this pricing rule maximizes utilitarian social welfare and is robust against strategic manipulation, it has not yet found many real-life applications. One key reason is that the original QV mechanism does not limit voter budgets. Two variations have since been proposed: a (no-budget) multiple-issue generalization and a fixed-budget version that allocates a constant number of credits to agents for use in multiple binary elections. While some analysis has been undertaken with respect to the multiple-issue variation, the fixed-budget version has not yet been rigorously studied. In this work, we formally propose a novel fixed-budget multiple-issue QV mechanism. This integrates the advantages of both the aforementioned variations, laying the theoretical foundations for practical use cases of QV, such as multi-agent resource allocation. We analyse our fixed-budget multiple-issue QV by comparing it with traditional voting systems, exploring potential collusion strategies, and showing that checking whether strategy profiles form a Nash equilibrium is tractable.
Forward citations
Cited by 1 Pith paper
-
A Social Choice Analysis of Optimism's Retroactive Project Funding
An abstract recommends the moving phantoms rule for RetroPGF funding on welfare and strategyproofness grounds, but the provided body is an unrelated topology paper, making the analysis unverifiable.
Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.