Choices of individuals can faithfully represent the opinion of the majority - if delegation is used correctly: passing the vote to another person
To what extent do the choices of the few affect the many? Social choice is a procedure in which a group of people/companies/employees/virtual agents have to reach a joint decision in a way that takes into account the preferences of all the voters. For example, citizens electing candidates for the Knesset or tenants electing a candidate for the house committee. There are various criteria for the success of the voting system, one that fits the wishes of the majority of voters.
Prof. Rashef Meir from the Faculty of Industrial Engineering and Management at the Technion examines in his research social choice using mathematical tools such as game theory, and the ability to influence it. According to him, "Since the Internet entered our lives, our ability to choose and influence in a variety of situations is much more accessible. This is how, for example, we vote on courses, employee committees and faculty at universities. That is, our social choice has expanded significantly. Many mathematical theories can predict the outcomes of everyday choices made by groups of people. Through them it is possible to analyze their considerations and understand how they lead to one or another result. Each election method can lead to a different result, and through mathematics it is possible to compare the methods and understand which method is better - that is, it faithfully reflects the position of the majority of voters."
Most studies in the field of social choice make an assumption that the choice of voters affects only them, but usually, in reality, this is not the case. Usually, only a minority of people get to vote but their vote affects everyone. As Prof. Meir explains: "In practice, even when people are given the right to choose, they do not always use it for all kinds of reasons. For example, because they haven't heard about the vote or it is not important enough to them and requires effort on their part, or lack of time and lack of knowledge (for example when they have to decide on the issue of environmental pollution and do not know how to properly vote). In the end, maybe ten percent come to vote and the decisions made by them affect everyone."
In their latest research, which won a grant from the National Science Foundation, Prof. Meir and his team sought to examine election methods whose results can reflect the preferences of the majority even if only a minority votes. These are safe election methods that include delegation - the possibility of a person who does not vote to transfer his vote to another person (for example, a neighbor who will elect the head of the committee on his behalf). The assumption is that people will choose to pass their vote to the person closest to them in terms of position, whose opinion, usually like theirs.
The researchers mathematically analyzed several situations, such as accepting a candidate for the faculty - a collection of voters who vote on one yes or no question, or voting on numerical questions such as the amount of the tax, or simultaneously on several yes and no questions. The research methods were mathematical, probabilistic and computational; The researchers coded the accepted assumptions about voter behavior and proved their conclusions. This way it was possible to understand when the delegation benefits the result (that is, reflects the wishes of the majority of people) and when it does not. "The goal was to find out when the delegation can provide a negative scenario and when a positive one. Because in some situations it can help and in others it can dramatically harm - to spread the power among many or to concentrate it in a few", says Prof. Meir.
It was found that the positive scenario is obtained when the delegation is limited. For example, 50 faculty members in the faculty are given the right to vote to vote on the acceptance of a certain candidate, but in practice only ten of them get to vote. If each of the 50 has the option to vote for one of the ten - so that each of the ten can receive up to five votes - then the opinions of all 50 will be expressed, assuming that all five who voted for one of the ten think the same.
The negative scenario is obtained when the delegation is not limited. For example, each of the ten can collect as many votes as he wants out of the 50. That is, a situation can arise where, for example, one of the ten represents 30 people who did not come to vote. That is, most of the power is concentrated in a few. "From this it can be understood that delegation can help in the daily decisions of groups, provided that it is used correctly, in a smart way", concludes Prof. Meir.
More of the topic in Hayadan:
