Strategic manipulability without resoluteness or shared beliefs: Gibbard-Satterthwaite generalized

@article{Duggan2000StrategicMW,
  title={Strategic manipulability without resoluteness or shared beliefs: Gibbard-Satterthwaite generalized},
  author={John Duggan and Thomas Schwartz},
  journal={Social Choice and Welfare},
  year={2000},
  volume={17},
  pages={85-93}
}
Abstract. The Gibbard-Satterthwaite Theorem on the manipulability of social-choice rules assumes resoluteness: there are no ties, no multi-member choice sets. Generalizations based on a familiar lottery idea allow ties but assume perfectly shared probabilistic beliefs about their resolution. We prove a more straightforward generalization that assumes almost no limit on ties or beliefs about them. 
Alternatives vs. Outcomes: A Note on the Gibbard-Satterthwaite Theorem
The Gibbard-Satterthwaite theorem is a well-known theorem from the field of social choice theory. It states that every voting scheme with at least 3 possible outcomes is dictatorial or manipulable.
Generalizing the Gibbard–Satterthwaite theorem: partial preferences, the degree of manipulation, and multi-valuedness
TLDR
The Gibbard–Satterthwaite (GS) theorem is generalized in three ways: it is proved that the theorem is still valid when individual preferences belong to a convenient class of partial preferences, and a variant of the theorem where the outcomes of the SCF are subsets of the set of alternatives of an a priori fixed size is proved.
Extraneous Alternatives and Strategy-Proofness
It is well known that the Gibbard–Satterthwaite theorem cannot be circumvented by adding extraneous alternatives that are included in the individual preference information but are never selected. We
Non-manipulability in Set-valued and Probabilistic Social Choice Theory
TLDR
The goal of this PhD project is to analyze for both models the boundary between possibility and impossibility results for various strategyproofness notions based on different assumptions on how voters compare sets of alternatives or lotters on alternatives.
Strategy-proof resolute social choice correspondences
TLDR
It is shown that in case the authors wish to “reasonably” relate preferences over committees to preferences over committee members, there is no domain restriction which allows escaping Gibbard–Satterthwaite type of impossibilities.
Strategyproof social choice when preferences and outcomes may contain ties
On single-peakedness and strategy-proofness: ties between adjacent alternatives
We extend the classical characterizations of social choice rules that satisfy strategy-proofness in the single-peaked domain of preferences by Moulin (Public Choice, 1980) and BarberA , Gul, and
Group-Strategyproof Irresolute Social Choice Functions
TLDR
A variant of Maskin-monotonicity is introduced that completely characterizes the class of pairwise irresolute social choice functions that are group-strategyproof according to Kelly's preference extension and furthermore encourage participation and thus do not suffer from the no-show paradox.
Strategic Manipulation in Voting Games When Lotteries and Ties Are Permitted
TLDR
A Gibbard–Satterthwaite type theorem is established for random decision rules and rules that permit ties and allows restrictions on the domain of rankings.
...
...

References

SHOWING 1-10 OF 24 REFERENCES
Strategic Manipulability is Inescapable: Gibbard-Satterthwaite without Resoluteness
TLDR
A generalization of Gibbard-Satterthwaite that covers the nonresolute case is proved and opens harder questions than it answers about the prediction of behavior and outcomes and the design of institutions.
No minimally reasonable collective-choice process can be strategy-proof
Generalized monotonicity and strategy-proofness for non-resolute social choice correspondences
Recently there are several works which analyzed the strategy-proofness of non-resolute social choice rules such as Duggan and Schwartz (2000) and Ching and Zhou (2001). In these analyses it was
STRATEGY-PROOFNESS AND SOCIAL CHOICE FUNCTIONS WITHOUT SINGLEVALUEDNESS
FOLLOWING ON SOME informal conjectures by Dummett and Farquharson [3] and Vickery [20] we now have independent proofs by Gibbard [7] and Satterthwaite [17 and 18] that no collective choice rule
Voting Systems, Honest Preferences and Pareto Optimality
The market is a decentralized system that can bring about efficient economic decisions. This paper examines whether social choice mechanisms can duplicate this success in the political arena. The
Strongly nonmanipulable multi-valued collective choice rules
A collective choice rule is 'manipulated' whenever some individual misrepresents his preferences in order to secure an outcome preferred to the outcome when he his honest. According to the theorem of
Multi-valued strategy-proof social choice rules
TLDR
Two Gibbard-Satterthwaite type results for strategy-proof social choice correspondences are proved and it is shown that allowing multiple outcomes as social choices will not necessarily lead to an escape from the Gibraltar impossibility theorem.
THE MANIPULATION OF SOCIAL CHOICE MECHANISMS THAT DO NOT LEAVE "TOO MUCH" TO CHANCE'
In this paper we study the possibility of constructing satisfactory social choice mechanisms whose outcomes are determined by a combination of voting and chance. The following theorem is obtained: if
Manipulation of Voting Schemes: A General Result
It has been conjectured that no system of voting can preclude strategic voting-the securing by a voter of an outcome he prefers through misrepresentation of his preferences. In this paper, for all
...
...