Selecting the Most Conflicting Pair of Candidates

We study committee elections from a perspective of finding the most conflicting candidates, that is, candidates that imply the largest amount of conflict, as per voter preferences. By proposing basic axioms to capture this objective, we show that none of the prominent multiwinner voting rules meet them. Consequently, we design committee voting rules compliant with our desiderata, introducing conflictual voting rules. A subsequent deepened analysis sheds more light on how they operate. Our investigation identifies various aspects of conflict, for which we come up with relevant axioms and quantitative measures, which may be of independent interest. We support our theoretical study with experiments on both real-life and synthetic data.

Measuring a Priori Voting Power -- Taking Delegations Seriously

In this paper, we introduce new power indices to measure the criticality of voters involved in different elections where delegations play a key role, namely, two variants of the proxy voting setting and a liquid democracy setting. First, we argue that our power indices are natural extensions of the Penrose-Banzhaf index in classic simple voting games, illustrating their intuitions. We show that recursive formulas can compute these indices for weighted voting games in pseudo-polynomial time. Last, we highlight theoretical properties and provide numerical results to illustrate how introducing delegation options modifies the voting power of voters.