Vote Delegation and Misbehavior
Hans Gersbach, Akaki Mamageishvili, Manvir Schneider

TL;DR
This paper compares vote delegation and conventional voting, analyzing how the presence of well-behaving and misbehaving agents affects the likelihood of positive outcomes in liquid democracy.
Contribution
It provides a theoretical comparison of voting methods under different levels of misbehavior, highlighting conditions where each method succeeds or fails.
Findings
High misbehavior leads to failure of both methods.
Intermediate misbehavior favors conventional voting.
Low misbehavior makes delegation more effective.
Abstract
We study vote delegation with "well-behaving" and "misbehaving" agents and compare it with conventional voting. Typical examples for vote delegation are validation or governance tasks on blockchains. There is a majority of well-behaving agents, but they may abstain or delegate their vote to other agents since voting is costly. Misbehaving agents always vote. We compare conventional voting allowing for abstention with vote delegation. Preferences of voters are private information and a positive outcome is achieved if well-behaving agents win. We illustrate that vote delegation leads to quite different outcomes than conventional voting with abstention. In particular, we obtain three insights: First, if the number of misbehaving voters, denoted by f , is high, both voting methods fail to deliver a positive outcome. Second, if f takes an intermediate value, conventional voting delivers a…
Peer Reviews
No public reviews on file for this paper yet. If you reviewed it on a platform where reviews are public (OpenReview, ICLR, NeurIPS, ICML), you can paste yours below so the community can read it here.
Videos
No videos yet. Explain this paper in a talk, walkthrough, or lecture? Add one.
Taxonomy
TopicsGame Theory and Voting Systems · Auction Theory and Applications · Internet Traffic Analysis and Secure E-voting
