An Axiomatic Characterization of Split Cycle

Overview

• This paper axiomatically characterizes a class of rules for resolving majority cycles in elections, known as "Split Cycle".
• The authors show that any rule satisfying five standard axioms plus a weakening of Arrow's Independence of Irrelevant Alternatives (IIA), called Coherent IIA, is refined by the Split Cycle rule.
• The authors then go further and prove that Split Cycle is the only rule satisfying their axioms, along with two additional axioms: Coherent Defeat and Positive Involvement in Defeat.
• The paper characterizes Split Cycle as both a collective choice rule and a social choice correspondence, over profiles of linear ballots and ballots allowing ties.

Plain English Explanation

When voters in an election have different preferences, it's possible for a majority of voters to prefer one candidate over another, and another majority to prefer a third candidate over the first. This creates a majority cycle, which can make it difficult to determine the winner.

The paper looks at different rules that can be used to resolve these majority cycles and identifies a specific rule called "Split Cycle". This rule says that in each majority cycle, you should discard the majority preferences with the smallest majority margin.

The authors show that any rule that satisfies a few standard axioms, plus a slightly weaker version of a well-known axiom called "Independence of Irrelevant Alternatives", will be "refined" by the Split Cycle rule. In other words, the Split Cycle rule will produce outcomes that are consistent with these axioms.

Going further, the authors then prove that Split Cycle is the only rule that satisfies their axioms, plus two additional axioms they introduce called "Coherent Defeat" and "Positive Involvement in Defeat". These new axioms help to characterize the class of rules that refine Split Cycle.

The paper looks at Split Cycle not just as a way to choose a single winner, but also as a way to produce a set of potential winners, which can be useful in some voting scenarios.

Technical Explanation

The paper focuses on the problem of resolving majority cycles in elections. The authors axiomatically characterize the class of rules refined by the "Split Cycle" rule, which discards the majority preferences with the smallest majority margin in each majority cycle.

The authors show that any rule satisfying five standard axioms (Anonymity, Neutrality, Positive Responsiveness, Reinforcement, and Pareto) plus a weakening of Arrow's Independence of Irrelevant Alternatives (IIA), called Coherent IIA, is refined by Split Cycle. Coherent IIA says that if a voter's preferences between two alternatives do not change, then the collective choice between those alternatives should not change.

The authors then go further and prove that Split Cycle is the only rule satisfying their five standard axioms, Coherent IIA, and two additional axioms they introduce:

1. Coherent Defeat: Any majority preference not occurring in a cycle is retained.
2. Positive Involvement in Defeat: Closely related to the well-known axiom of Positive Involvement, this axiom states that if a voter's preferences cause a majority preference to be defeated, then that voter should be positively involved in that defeat.

The paper characterizes Split Cycle not only as a collective choice rule (which selects a single winner), but also as a social choice correspondence (which selects a set of potential winners). This is done for both profiles of linear ballots and profiles of ballots allowing ties.

Critical Analysis

The paper provides a thorough and rigorous axiomatic characterization of the Split Cycle rule for resolving majority cycles in elections. The authors' use of standard axioms, along with the new axioms of Coherent Defeat and Positive Involvement in Defeat, helps to clearly delineate the class of rules that refine Split Cycle.

One potential limitation of the research is that it focuses solely on the theoretical properties of the rules, without considering practical implications or real-world applications. It would be interesting to see how the Split Cycle rule performs in empirical studies or simulations, and how it compares to other cycle-resolving rules in terms of outcomes, fairness, and voter satisfaction.

Additionally, the paper does not address potential strategic voting considerations or incentives for voters and candidates under the Split Cycle rule. Understanding how voting methods can shape candidate incentives is an important aspect of evaluating the merits of any voting system.

Overall, the paper makes a valuable contribution to the literature on majority cycles and election rules, but further research exploring the practical and strategic implications of the Split Cycle rule would help to fully assess its potential as a method for resolving electoral conflicts.

Conclusion

This paper provides a rigorous axiomatic characterization of the Split Cycle rule for resolving majority cycles in elections. The authors show that Split Cycle is the only rule satisfying a set of standard axioms plus two new axioms, Coherent Defeat and Positive Involvement in Defeat.

By characterizing Split Cycle both as a collective choice rule and a social choice correspondence, the paper offers a comprehensive understanding of this cycle-resolving method. While the theoretical analysis is strong, further research is needed to evaluate the practical and strategic implications of using Split Cycle in real-world elections.

Overall, this work contributes to the ongoing efforts to escape the limitations of Arrow's Theorem and develop voting systems that can better handle disagreement and conflict in electoral outcomes.