Search

• Two parties compete in an election by nominating candidates as their strategies. • We assume a candidate to win more likely if she brings more utility for all. • We investigate the existence of Pure Nash equilibria of this game. • Price of anarchy is bounded if candidates never treat non-supporters better. In this paper, we propose a simple and intuitive model to investigate the efficiency of the two-party election system, especially regarding the nomination process. Each of the two parties has its own candidates, and each of them brings utilities for the people including the supporters and non-supporters. In an election, each party nominates exactly one of its candidates to compete against the other party's. The candidate wins the election with higher odds if he or she brings more utility for all the people. We model such competition as a two-party election game such that each party is a player with two or more pure strategies corresponding to its potential candidates, and the payoff of each party is a mixed utility from a selected pair of competing candidates. By looking into the three models, namely, the linear link, Bradley-Terry, and the softmax models, which differ in how to formulate a candidate's winning odds against the competing candidate, we show that the two-party election game may neither have any pure Nash equilibrium nor a bounded price of anarchy. Nevertheless, by considering the conventional egoism , which states that any candidate benefits his/her party's supporters more than any candidate from the competing party does, we prove that the two-party election game in both the linear link model and the softmax model always has pure Nash equilibria, and furthermore, the price of anarchy is constantly bounded. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

From a perspective of designing or engineering for opinion formation games in social networks, the opinion maximization (or minimization) problem has been studied mainly for designing seeding algorithms that aim at selecting a subset of nodes to control their opinions. We first define a two-player zero-sum Stackelberg game of competitive opinion optimization by letting the player under study as the leader minimize the sum of expressed opinions by doing so-called "internal opinion design", knowing that the other adversarial player as the follower is to maximize the same objective by also conducting her own internal opinion design. We furthermore consider multiagent learning, specifically using the Optimistic Gradient Descent Ascent, and analyze its convergence to equilibria in the simultaneous-game version of competitive opinion optimization. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]