Flexible Representative Democracy: An Introduction with Binary Issues

AI-generated keywords: Flexible Representative Democracy Binary Issues Interactive Democracy Computational Lens Empirical Evidence

AI-generated Key Points

Introduction of Flexible Representative Democracy (FRD) as a hybrid system between Representative Democracy (RD) and Direct Democracy (DD)
FRD allows voters to adjust issue-dependent weights of elected representatives
Empowers voters to shape balance between direct and representative decision-making
Uses non-transitive delegations with fixed group of accountable elected representatives
Focus on binary and symmetric issues through a computational lens
Comparison of various voting systems against Direct Democracy with majority voting as benchmark
Highlighting limitations of Representative Democracy, including NP-Hardness results for electing optimal set of representatives and potential pathologies
Common multi-winner election rules for selecting representatives do not perform optimally in practice
Theoretical insights on how issue-specific delegations influence outcomes in FRD
Empirical findings comparing outcomes across Representative Democracy, proxy voting, and Flexible Representative Democracy with issue-specific delegations
Results suggest that variants of Proxy Voting do not offer significant advantages over unweighted representatives, while FRD has potential to enhance outcomes with increased voter participation

Also access our AI generated: Comprehensive summary, Lay summary, Blog-like article; or ask questions about this paper to our AI assistant.

Authors: Ben Abramowitz, Nicholas Mattei

arXiv: 1811.02921v3 - DOI (cs.MA)

License: CC BY-NC-SA 4.0

Abstract: We introduce Flexible Representative Democracy (FRD), a novel hybrid of Representative Democracy (RD) and Direct Democracy (DD) in which voters can alter the issue-dependent weights of a set of elected representatives. In line with the literature on Interactive Democracy, our model allows the voters to actively determine the degree to which the system is direct versus representative. However, unlike Liquid Democracy, Flexible Representative Democracy uses strictly non-transitive delegations, making delegation cycles impossible, and maintains a fixed set of accountable, elected representatives. We present FRD and analyze it using a computational approach with issues that are binary and symmetric. We compare the outcomes of various voting systems using Direct Democracy with majority voting as an ideal baseline. First, we demonstrate the shortcomings of Representative Democracy in our model. We provide NP-Hardness results for electing an ideal set of representatives, discuss pathologies, and demonstrate empirically that common multi-winner election rules for selecting representatives do not perform well in expectation. To analyze the effects of adding flexibility, we begin by providing theoretical results on how issue-specific delegations determine outcomes. Finally, we provide empirical results comparing the outcomes of Representative Democracy, proxy voting with fixed sets of proxies across issues, and Flexible Representative Democracy with issue-specific delegations. Our results show that variants of Proxy Voting yield no discernible benefit over unweighted representatives and reveal the potential for Flexible Representative Democracy to improve outcomes as voter participation increases.

Submitted to arXiv on 07 Nov. 2018

Ask questions about this paper to our AI assistant

You can also chat with multiple papers at once here.

AI assistant instructions?

Results of the summarizing process for the arXiv paper: 1811.02921v3

Comprehensive Summary
Key points
Layman's Summary
Blog article

In their paper titled "Flexible Representative Democracy: An Introduction with Binary Issues," authors Ben Abramowitz and Nicholas Mattei introduce a novel concept known as Flexible Representative Democracy (FRD). This system serves as a hybrid between Representative Democracy (RD) and Direct Democracy (DD), allowing voters to adjust the issue-dependent weights of elected representatives. Drawing from the literature on Interactive Democracy, FRD empowers voters to actively shape the balance between direct and representative decision-making within the system. Unlike Liquid Democracy, which permits transitive delegations leading to delegation cycles, FRD employs strictly non-transitive delegations while maintaining a fixed group of accountable elected representatives. The authors present FRD through a computational lens, focusing on binary and symmetric issues. They compare various voting systems against Direct Democracy with majority voting as an ideal benchmark. The study begins by highlighting the limitations of Representative Democracy within their model, showcasing NP-Hardness results for electing an optimal set of representatives and discussing potential pathologies. Empirical evidence reveals that common multi-winner election rules for selecting representatives do not perform optimally in practice. To explore the impact of introducing flexibility into the democratic process, theoretical insights are provided on how issue-specific delegations influence outcomes. The authors then offer empirical findings comparing outcomes across Representative Democracy, proxy voting with fixed sets of proxies across issues, and Flexible Representative Democracy with issue-specific delegations. The results indicate that variants of Proxy Voting do not offer significant advantages over unweighted representatives. Moreover, they suggest that Flexible Representative Democracy has the potential to enhance outcomes as voter participation increases. Overall, this research sheds light on the intricate dynamics between direct and representative democracy models and underscores the promise of FRD in improving democratic decision-making processes.

- Introduction of Flexible Representative Democracy (FRD) as a hybrid system between Representative Democracy (RD) and Direct Democracy (DD)
- FRD allows voters to adjust issue-dependent weights of elected representatives
- Empowers voters to shape balance between direct and representative decision-making
- Uses non-transitive delegations with fixed group of accountable elected representatives
- Focus on binary and symmetric issues through a computational lens
- Comparison of various voting systems against Direct Democracy with majority voting as benchmark
- Highlighting limitations of Representative Democracy, including NP-Hardness results for electing optimal set of representatives and potential pathologies
- Common multi-winner election rules for selecting representatives do not perform optimally in practice
- Theoretical insights on how issue-specific delegations influence outcomes in FRD
- Empirical findings comparing outcomes across Representative Democracy, proxy voting, and Flexible Representative Democracy with issue-specific delegations
- Results suggest that variants of Proxy Voting do not offer significant advantages over unweighted representatives, while FRD has potential to enhance outcomes with increased voter participation

SummaryFlexible Representative Democracy (FRD) is a mix of two types of democracy, where voters can change how much power their chosen representatives have based on the issue. This lets voters decide how much say they want in making decisions. FRD uses a unique way for voters to give their power to elected representatives, who are responsible for making choices. It focuses on simple issues that can be looked at through computers. When compared to other voting systems, FRD seems to work better than some but not all. Definitions- Flexible Representative Democracy (FRD): A type of democracy that combines elements of both Representative Democracy and Direct Democracy. - Elected Representatives: People chosen by voters to make decisions on their behalf. - Delegations: The act of entrusting someone with authority or power. - Binary and Symmetric Issues: Simple problems that have only two possible outcomes and are fair for everyone involved. - Proxy Voting: Allowing someone else to vote on your behalf in an election.

Flexible Representative Democracy: An Introduction with Binary Issues In a world where democracy is the preferred form of government, there has been ongoing debate about the most effective way to ensure fair and representative decision-making. Traditional forms of democracy, such as Representative Democracy (RD) and Direct Democracy (DD), have their own limitations and challenges. However, in their paper titled "Flexible Representative Democracy: An Introduction with Binary Issues," authors Ben Abramowitz and Nicholas Mattei introduce a novel concept that combines the best aspects of both RD and DD – Flexible Representative Democracy (FRD). The concept of FRD serves as a hybrid between RD and DD, allowing voters to adjust the issue-dependent weights of elected representatives. This means that voters have more control over the balance between direct and representative decision-making within the system. Unlike Liquid Democracy, which allows for transitive delegations leading to delegation cycles, FRD employs strictly non-transitive delegations while maintaining a fixed group of accountable elected representatives. To understand how FRD works, it is important to first understand its foundations in Interactive Democracy. This approach empowers voters to actively shape the democratic process by providing them with more options for participation beyond simply casting their vote on election day. The authors highlight how this can lead to better outcomes by giving citizens a greater sense of ownership over decisions made by their government. The focus of this research paper is on binary issues – those that only have two possible outcomes – and symmetric issues – those where all individuals are affected equally regardless of outcome. By narrowing down their scope in this way, Abramowitz and Mattei are able to provide clear insights into how FRD functions within these specific parameters. One key aspect highlighted in this study is the limitations of traditional RD models when it comes to electing an optimal set of representatives. The authors showcase NP-Hardness results for this process, meaning that finding an optimal solution becomes increasingly difficult as more variables are introduced into the equation. This highlights the need for alternative approaches to traditional RD. The authors also discuss potential pathologies within RD, such as the winner-take-all system that can lead to a lack of representation for minority groups. This is where FRD shines, as it allows for more nuanced and flexible decision-making by giving voters the ability to adjust the weights of elected representatives based on specific issues. To further explore the impact of introducing flexibility into the democratic process, theoretical insights are provided on how issue-specific delegations influence outcomes. The authors then offer empirical findings comparing outcomes across different democratic models – Representative Democracy, proxy voting with fixed sets of proxies across issues, and Flexible Representative Democracy with issue-specific delegations. The results of this study indicate that variants of Proxy Voting do not offer significant advantages over unweighted representatives. Moreover, they suggest that Flexible Representative Democracy has the potential to enhance outcomes as voter participation increases. This highlights how FRD can address some of the limitations and challenges faced by traditional forms of democracy. In conclusion, Abramowitz and Mattei's research paper sheds light on the intricate dynamics between direct and representative democracy models and underscores the promise of FRD in improving democratic decision-making processes. By providing a computational lens through which to view this concept and focusing on binary and symmetric issues, their study offers valuable insights into how FRD can be implemented in practice. As technology continues to advance and shape our world, it is important to consider innovative approaches like FRD in order to create more effective and inclusive democratic systems.

Created on 20 Mar. 2024

Assess the quality of the AI-generated content by voting

Score: 0

The previous summary was created more than a year ago and can be re-run (if necessary) by clicking on the Run button below.

Look for similar papers (in beta version)

By clicking on the button above, our algorithm will scan all papers in our database to find the closest based on the contents of the full papers and not just on metadata. Please note that it only works for papers that we have generated summaries for and you can rerun it from time to time to get a more accurate result while our database grows.

Disclaimer: The AI-based summarization tool and virtual assistant provided on this website may not always provide accurate and complete summaries or responses. We encourage you to carefully review and evaluate the generated content to ensure its quality and relevance to your needs.