Computational politics: Electoral systems

Lecture Notes in Computer Science (including subseries Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence and Lecture Notes in Bioinformatics)

Volumn 1893, Issue , 2000, Pages 64-83

  Hemaspaandra, Edith ^a   Hemaspaandra, Lane A ^b  

^a Rochester Institute of Technology   (United States)

^b University of Rochester   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE; COMPUTER SCIENCE; COMPUTERS;

CLASSIC ALGORITHM; ELECTORAL SYSTEMS; PARALLEL ACCESS TO NP; SIMULATED ANNEALING ALGORITHMS;

SIMULATED ANNEALING;

EID: 84959217784     PISSN: 03029743     EISSN: 16113349     Source Type: Book Series    
DOI: 10.1007/3-540-44612-5_5     Document Type: Conference Paper

References (48)

1. L. Adleman. Time, space, and randomness. Technical Report MIT/LCS/TM-131, MIT, Cambridge, MA, April 1979.
2. K. Arrow. Social Choice and Individual Values. John Wiley and Sons, 1951 (revised editon, 1963).
3. M. Balinski and H. Young. Fair Representation: Meeting the Ideal of One Man, One Vote. Yale University Press, New Haven, 1982.
4. M. Balinski and H. Young. Fair representation: Meeting the ideal of one man, one vote. In H. Young, editor, Fair Allocation, pages 1-29. American Mathematical Society, 1985. Proceedings of Symposia in Applied Mathematics, V. 33.
5. J. Bartholdi, III, C. Tovey, and M. Trick. The computational difficulty of manipulating an election. Social Choice and Welfare, 6:227-241, 1989.
6. J. Bartholdi III, C. Tovey, and M. Trick. Voting schemes for which it can be difficult to tell who won the election. Social Choice and Welfare, 6:157-165, 1989.
7. J. Bartholdi III, C. Tovey, and M. Trick. How hard is it to control an election? Mathematical and Computer Modeling, 16(8/9):27-40, 1992.
8. R. Beigel, L. Hemachandra, and G. Wechsung. Probabilistic polynomial time is closed under parity reductions. Information Processing Letters, 37(2):91-94, 1991.
9. D. Black. Theory of Committees and Elections. Cambridge University Press, 1958.
10. S. Buss and L. Hay. On truth-table reducibility to SAT. Information and Computation, 91(1):86-102, 1991.
11. J. Cai, T. Gundermann, J. Hartmanis, L. Hemachandra, V. Sewelson, K. Wagner, and G. Wechsung. The boolean hierarchy I: Structural properties. SIAM Journal on Computing, 17(6):1232-1252, 1988.
12. J. Cai, T. Gundermann, J. Hartmanis, L. Hemachandra, V. Sewelson, K. Wagner, and G. Wechsung. The boolean hierarchy II: Applications. SIAM Journal on Computing, 18(1):95-111, 1989.
13. M. J. A. N. de Caritat, Marquis de Condorcet. Essai sur {'Application de L 'Analyse a la Probabilite des Decisions Rendues a la Pluraliste des Voix. 1785. Facsimile reprint of original published in Paris, 1972, by the Imprimerie Royale.
14. C. Dodgson. A method of taking votes on more than two issues, 1876. Pamphlet printed by the Clarendon Press, Oxford, and headed "not yet published" (see the discussions in [31,9], both of which reprint this paper).
15. P. Dubey and L. Shapley. Mathematical properties of the Banzhaf power index. Mathematics of Operations Research, 4(2):99-131, May 1979.
16. W. Feller. An introduction to probability theory and its applications. Wiley, New York, 1968.
17. M. Garey and D. Johnson. Computers and Intractability: A Guide to the Theory of NP-Completeness. W. H. Freeman and Company, 1979.
18. J. Hartmanis. Generalized Kolmogorov complexity and the structure of feasible computations. In Proceedings of the 24th IEEE Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science, pages 439-445. IEEE Computer Society Press, 1983.
19. L. Hemachandra. The strong exponential hierarchy collapses. Journal of Computer and System Sciences, 39(3):299-322, 1989.
20. L. Hemachandra and G. Wechsung. Kolmogorov characterizations of complexity classes. Theoretical Computer Science, 83:313-322, 1991.
21. E. Hemaspaandra. The complexity of Kemeny elections. In preparation.
22. E. Hemaspaandra, L. Hemaspaandra, and J. Rothe. Exact analysis of Dodgson elections: Lewis Carroll's 1876 voting system is complete for parallel access to NP. Journal of the ACM, 44(6):806-825, 1997.
23. E. Hemaspaandra, L. Hemaspaandra, and J. Rothe. Raising NP lower bounds to parallel NP lower bounds. SIGACT News, 28(2):2-13, 1997.
24. L. Hemaspaandra, K. Rajasethupathy, P. Sethupathy, and M. Zimand. Power balance and apportionment algorithms for the United States Congress. ACM Journal of Experimental Algorithmics, 3(1), 1998. URL http://www.jea.acm.org/1998/HemaspaandraPower, 16pp.
25. J. Kadin. PNp[losn] and sparse Turing-complete sets for NP. Journal of Computer and System Sciences, 39(3):282-298, 1989.
26. J. Kemeny and L. Snell. Mathematical Models in the Social Sciences. Ginn, 1960.
27. J. Kobler, U. Schoning, and K. Wagner. The difference and truth-table hierarchies for NP. RAIRO Theoretical Informatics and Applications, 21:419-435, 1987.
28. R. Ladner, N. Lynch, and A. Selman. A comparison of polynomial time reducibi-lities. Theoretical Computer Science, 1(2):103-124, 1975.
29. I. Mann and L. Shapley. Values of large games, IV: Evaluating the electoral college by Monte Carlo techniques. Research Memorandum RM-2651 (ASTIA No. AD 246277), The Rand Corporation, Santa Monica, CA, September 1960.
30. I. Mann and L. Shapley. Values of large games, VI: Evaluating the electoral college exactly. Research Memorandum RM-3158-PR, The Rand Corporation, Santa Monica, CA, 1962.
31. I. McLean and A. Urken. Classics of Social Choice. University of Michigan Press, 1995.
32. R. Niemi and W. Riker. The choice of voting systems. Scientific American, 234:2127, 1976.
33. C. Papadimitriou and M. Yannakakis. On complexity as bounded rationality. In Proceedings of the 26th ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing, pages 726-733. ACM Press, 1994.
34. K. Prasad and J. Kelly. NP-completeness of some problems concerning voting games. International Journal of Game Theory, 19:1-9, 1990.
35. K. Regan and J. Royer. On closure properties of bounded two-sided error complexity classes. Mathematical Systems Theory, 28(3):229-244, 1995.
36. L. Shapley. Measurement of power in political systems. In W. Lucas, editor, Game Theory and its Applications, pages 69-81. American Mathematical Society, 1981. Proceedings of Symposia in Applied Mathematics, V. 24.
37. L. Shapley and M. Shubik. A method of evaluating the distribution of power in a committee system. American Political Science Review, 48:787-792, 1954.
38. H. Simon. The Sciences of the Artificial. MIT Press, 1969. Second edition, 1981.
39. M. Sipser. Borel sets and circuit complexity. In Proceedings of the 15th ACM Symposium on Theory ofComputing, pages 61-69. ACM Press, 1983.
40. P Straffin, Jr. 0Homogeneity, independence, and power indices. Public Choice,30 (Summer), 1977.
41. United States Department of Commerce et al. versus Montana et al. US Supreme Court Case 91-860. Decided March 31, 1992.
42. S. Toda. PP is as hard as the polynomial-time hierarchy. SIAM Journal on Computing, 20(5):865-877, 1991.
43. S. Toda and M. Ogiwara. Counting classes are at least as hard as the polynomial-time hierarchy. SIAM Journal on Computing, 21(2):316-328, 1992.
44. L. Valiant. The complexity of computing the permanent. Theoretical Computer Science, 8(2):189-201, 1979.
45. L. Valiant. The complexity of enumeration and reliability problems. SIAM Journal on Computing, 8(3):410-421, 1979.
46. K. Wagner. More complicated questions about maxima and minima, and some closures of NP. Theoretical Computer Science, 51(1-2):53-80, 1987.
47. K. Wagner. Bounded query classes. SIAM Journal on Computing, 19(5):833-846, 1990.
48. H. Young and A. Levenglick. A consistent extension of Condorcet's election principle. SIAM Journal on Applied Mathematics, 35(2):285-300, 1978.