Average-Case Analysis of Iterative Voting
This work provides incremental insights into strategic voting in social choice theory, specifically for researchers studying iterative mechanisms.
The paper analyzes the average-case performance of iterative plurality voting across three alternatives, determining conditions under which it improves or degrades welfare compared to truthful voting.
Iterative voting is a natural model of repeated strategic decision-making in social choice theory when agents have the opportunity to update their votes prior to finalizing the group decision. Prior work has analyzed the efficacy of iterative plurality on the welfare of the chosen outcome at equilibrium, relative to the truthful vote profile, via an adaptation of the price of anarchy. However, prior analyses have only studied the worst- and average-case performances when agents' preferences are distributed by the impartial culture. This work extends average-case analysis comprehensively across three alternatives and distinguishes under which of agents' preference distributions iterative plurality improves or degrades asymptotic welfare.