An Analysis of Approval-Based Committee Rules for 2D-Euclidean Elections
Michal Tomasz Godziszewski, Pawel Batko, Piotr Skowron, Piotr Faliszewski
Abstract
We study approval-based committee elections for the case where the voters' preferences come from a 2D-Euclidean model. We consider two main issues: First, we ask for the complexity of computing election results. Second, we evaluate election outcomes experimentally, following the visualization technique of Elkind et al. (2017) . Regarding the first issue, we find that many NP-hard rules remain intractable for 2D-Euclidean elections. For the second one, we observe that the behavior and nature of many rules strongly depend on the exact protocol for choosing the approved candidates. all the domain restrictions considered by Elkind and Lackner (2015) are one-dimensional). We check if these polynomial-time results can be extended to the two-dimensional case. We consider voting rules that seek committees of different types. In particular, we consider Multiwinner Approval Voting (AV), which focuses on individual excellence, Proportional Approval Voting (PAV), Phragmén's Sequential rule (Phr), and Rule X, which focus on proportionality, and Approval Chamberlin-Courant (CC), which focuses on diversity. Additionally, we also consider Minimax Approval Voting (MAV), which is based on the egalitarian principle. Approval-Based Euclidean Elections. Briefly put, in a Euclidean model each candidate and each voter is represented as his or her ideal point, i.e., a point in some Euclidean space R , whose coordinates are interpreted as a given candidate's or voter's positions on some issues (for example, in a two-dimensional model these two issues may correspond to the extents to which an individual supports personal and economic freedom). To derive the voters' approval sets, we use the following two principles: 1. In the voter-range model, if a voter approves some candidate then he or she also approves all
Ask about this paper
Your agent reads all of it.
Lune indexed this paper to the last equation, along with the top-tier papers that cite it. Ask a question and the answer quotes them.
Your agent calls
Luneget_paper_fulltext
Free to start. No credit card required.
Terminal
Install the CLIlune papers fulltext 27f40551-f96f-4ccf-892f-e18945e65ce1Cited by top-tier papers4
- The Price of Justified RepresentationEdith Elkind, Piotr Faliszewski, Ayumi Igarashi, Pasin Manurangsi et al.AAAI 2022 · 12 citations
- Spatial Voting with Incomplete Voter InformationAviram Imber, Jonas Israel, Markus Brill, Hadas Shachnai et al.AAAI 2024 · 6 citations
- The Complexity of Proportionality Degree in Committee ElectionsLukasz Janeczko, Piotr FaliszewskiAAAI 2022 · 4 citations
- Algorithms for Structured Elections Under Thiele Voting RulesAlexandra Lassota, Krzysztof SornatAAAI 2026 · 2 citations
Builds on1
Related papers
- Approval-Based Committee Voting under Incomplete InformationAviram Imber, Jonas Israel, Markus Brill, Benny KimelfeldAAAI 2022 · 10 citations
- Multi-Winner ReconfigurationJiehua Chen, Christian Hatschka, Sofia SimolaNeurIPS 2024 · 2 citations
- Understanding the Impact of Proportionality in Approval-Based Multiwinner ElectionsNiclas Boehmer, Lara Glessen, Jannik PetersAAAI 2026
- The Complexity of Learning Approval-Based Multiwinner Voting RulesIoannis Caragiannis, Karl FehrsAAAI 2022 · 6 citations
- Strategyproofness and Proportionality in Party-Approval Multiwinner ElectionsThéo Delemazure, Tom Demeulemeester, Manuel Eberl, Jonas Israel et al.AAAI 2023 · 13 citations
