Voting can abstractly model any decision-making scenario and as such it has been extensively studied over the decades. Recently, the related literature has focused on quantifying the impact of utilizing only limited information in the voting process on the societal welfare for the outcome, by bounding the distortion of voting rules. Even though there has been signi cant progress towards this goal, almost all previous works have so far neglected the fact that in many scenarios (like presidential elections) voting is actually a distributed procedure. In this paper, we consider a se ing in which the voters are partitioned into disjoint districts and vote locally therein to elect local winning alternatives using a voting rule; the nal outcome is then chosen from the set of these alternatives. We prove tight bounds on the distortion of well-known voting rules for such distributed elections both from a worst-case perspective as well as from a best-case one. Our results indicate that the partition of voters into districts leads to considerably higher distortion, a phenomenon which we also experimentally showcase using real-world data.

Liquid democracy, which combines features of direct and representative democracy has been proposed as a modern practice for collective decision making. Its advocates support that by allowing voters to delegate their vote to more informed voters can result in better decisions. In an attempt to evaluate the validity of such claims, we study liquid democracy as a means to discover an underlying ground truth. We revisit a recent model by Kahng et al. [2018] and conclude with three negative results, criticizing an important assumption of their modeling, as well as liquid democracy more generally. In particular, we first identify cases where natural local mechanisms are much worse than either direct voting or the other extreme of full delegation to a common dictator. We then show that delegating to less informed voters may considerably increase the chance of discovering the ground truth. Finally, we show that deciding delegations that maximize the probability to find the ground truth is a computationally hard problem.

When selecting multiple candidates based on approval preferences of agents, the proportional representation of agents' opinions is an important and well-studied desideratum. Existing criteria for evaluating the representativeness of outcomes focus on groups of agents and demand that sufficiently large and cohesive groups are "represented" in the sense that candidates approved by some group members are selected. Crucially, these criteria say nothing about the representation of individual agents, even if these agents are members of groups that deserve representation. In this paper, we formalize the concept of individual representation (IR) and explore to which extent, and under which circumstances, it can be achieved. We show that checking whether an IR outcome exists is computationally intractable, and we verify that all common approval-based voting rules may fail to provide IR even in cases where this is possible. We then focus on domain restrictions and establish an interesting contrast between "voter interval" and "candidate interval" preferences. This contrast can also be observed in our experimental results, where we analyze the attainability of IR for realistic preference profiles.

We consider a voting scenario where agents have opinions that are estimates of an underlying common ground truth ranking of the available alternatives, and each agent is asked to approve a set with her most preferred alternatives. We assume that estimates are implicitly formed using the well-known Mallows model for generating random rankings. We show that k-approval voting -where all agents are asked to approve the same number k of alternatives and the outcome is obtained by sorting the alternatives in terms of their number of approvalshas exponential sample complexity for all values of k. This negative result suggests that an exponential (in terms of the number of alternatives m) number of agents is always necessary in order to recover the ground truth ranking with high probability. In contrast, by just asking each agent to approve a random number of alternatives, the sample complexity improves dramatically: it now depends only polynomially on m. Our results may have implications on the effectiveness of crowdsourcing applications that ask workers to provide their input by approving sets of available alternatives.

We introduce a new model for two-sided matching which allows us to borrow popular fairness notions from the fair division literature such as envy-freeness up to one good and maximin share guarantee. In our model, each agent is matched to multiple agents on the other side over whom she has additive preferences. We demand fairness for each side separately, giving rise to notions such as double envy-freeness up to one match (DEF1) and double maximin share guarantee (DMMS). We show that (a slight strengthening of) DEF1 cannot always be achieved, but in the special case where both sides have identical preferences, the round-robin algorithm with a carefully designed agent ordering achieves it. In contrast, DMMS cannot be achieved even when both sides have identical preferences.