Toward Computing the Margin of Victory in Single Transferable Vote Elections

References

• Achterberg T (2009) SCIP: Solving constraint integer programs. Math. Programming Comput. 1(1):1–41.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Bartholdi JJ III, Orlin JB (1991) Single transferable vote resists strategic voting. Soc. Choice Welfare 8(4):341–354.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Blom M, Stuckey PJ, Teague V, Tidhar R (2016) Efficient computation of exact IRV margins. Eur. Conf. Artificial Intelligence (ECAI) (IOS Press, Amsterdam), 480–487.Google Scholar
• Brandt F, Conitzer V, Endriss U, Procaccia AD, Lang J (2016) Handbook of Computational Social Choice (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK).Crossref, Google Scholar
• Cary D (2011) Estimating the margin of victory for instant-runoff voting. USENIX Accurate Electronic Voting Technology Workshop: Workshop on Trustworthy Elections (USENIX Association Berkeley, Berkeley, CA).Google Scholar
• Chilingirian B, Perumal Z, Rivest RL, Bowland G, Conway A, Stark PB, Blom M, Culnane C, Teague V (2016) Auditing Australian senate ballots. https://arxiv.org/abs/1610.00127.Google Scholar
• Conitzer V, Lang J, Sandholm T (2003) How many candidates are needed to make elections hard to manipulate? Proc. 9th Conf. Theoretical Aspects Rationality Knowledge (ACM, New York), 201–214.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Conitzer V, Sandholm T, Lang J (2007) When are elections with few candidates hard to manipulate? J. ACM 54(3):14.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Faliszewski P, Hemaspaandra E, Hemaspaandra L (2009) How hard is bribery in elections? J. Artificial Intelligence Res. 35(1):485–532.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Farrell D, McAllister I (2005) Australia: The alternative vote in a compliant political culture. Gallagher M, Mitchell P, eds. The Politics of Electoral Systems (Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK), 79–97.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Gounaris CE, Misener R, Floudas CA (2009) Computational comparison of piecewise-linear relaxations for pooling problems. Indust. Engrg. Chemical Res. 48(12):5742–5766.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Kaczmarczyk A, Faliszewski P (2016) Algorithms for destructive shift bribery. Proc. 2016 Internat. Conf. Autonomous Agents Multiagent Systems (AAMAS) (International Foundation for Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems, Richland, SC), 305–313.Google Scholar
• Magrino T, Rivest R, Shen E, Wagner D (2011) Computing the margin of victory in IRV elections. USENIX Accurate Electronic Voting Technology Workshop: Workshop on Trustworthy Elections (USENIX Association, Berkeley, CA).Google Scholar
• McCormick GP (1976) Computability of global solutions to factorable nonconvex programs: Part I—Convex underestimating problems. Math. Programming 10(1):147–175.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Miragliotta NL (2004) Little differences, big effects: An example of the importance of choice of method for transferring surplus votes in PR-STV voting systems. Representation 41(1):15–24.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Narodytska N, Walsh T (2014) The computational impact of partial votes on strategic voting. Proc. Eur. Conf. Artificial Intelligence (ECAI) (IOS Press, Amsterdam), 657–662.Google Scholar
• Rothe J, Schend L (2013) Challenges to complexity shields that are supposed to protect elections against manipulation and control: A survey. Ann. Math. Artificial Intelligence 68(1-3):161–193.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Sarwate A, Checkoway S, Shacham H (2013) Risk-limiting audits and the margin of victory in nonplurality elections. Statist. Politics Policy 4(1):29–64.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Schürmann C (2017) Automatic margin computation for risk-limiting audits. Electronic Voting: First International Joint Conf. E-Vote-ID 2016 (Springer, Bregenz, Austria), 18–37.Google Scholar
• Weeks L (2011) Tolerable chance or undesirable arbitrariness? Distributing surplus votes under PR-STV. Parliamentary Affairs 64(3):530–551.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Xia L (2012) Computing the margin of victory for various voting rules. Proc. ACM Conf. Electronic Commerce (EC) (ACM, New York), 982–999.Crossref, Google Scholar