mlsanityData to 14 Oct 2026

Proportional Representation in Temporal Voting with Ranked Preferences

arXiv 2609.30555 ↗First posted 24 Sep 2026cs.GT cs.AIcited by 0

Not on the map. Why?

Abstract (arXiv)

We study proportional representation in temporal voting, where one candidate is selected in each round. While prior work has focused on approval ballots, we consider ranked preferences, which may change over time. A natural approach treats each voter's top candidates as approved, but the right cutoff may differ across voters and rounds. We therefore require proportionality to hold for every admissible choice of cutoffs, whether fixed and common, common but varying across rounds, or set individually for each voter in each round. Combining these interpretations with temporal versions of justified representation (JR), proportional JR (PJR), extended JR (EJR), and proportionality for solid coalitions (PSC) gives us a hierarchy of axioms. We ask which of these axioms can be guaranteed, and with how much knowledge of the future. Unlike with approval ballots, no version of EJR can be guaranteed, and for the other axioms, flexibility in the cutoffs comes at a price. With a fixed common cutoff, JR, PJR, and PSC can be guaranteed, but only by rules that see all preferences in advance. Once the cutoff may vary across rounds, even such rules cannot guarantee JR or PSC for groups that agree in only some rounds. For groups that agree in every round, however, knowing only the number of rounds suffices for PJR in polynomial time, and PSC needs no knowledge of the future at all. Under individual cutoffs, no version of JR or PJR can be guaranteed, yet a rule as simple as serial dictatorship achieves PJR up to an additive loss that no rule can improve on, however much it knows. Natural preference restrictions restore exact guarantees. Finally, we show that checking our axioms is often coNP-complete; but perhaps surprisingly, a stronger axiom can be easier to check.

Key facts. No citing papers in the map yet (data through 14 Oct 2026). Builds on 21 of its 34 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 24 Sep 2026.

Builds on

21 of 34 references.

References · 21

  1. 2022Training language models to follow instructions with human feedbackcited by 15,971
  2. 2024Social Choice Should Guide AI Alignment in Dealing with Diverse Human Feedbackcited by 100
  3. 2014Justified Representation in Approval-Based Committee Votingcited by 42
  4. 2020Multi-Winner Voting with Approval Preferencescited by 37
  5. 2020Proportional Participatory Budgeting with Additive Utilitiescited by 37
  6. 2016Proportional Justified Representationcited by 25
  7. 2023Robust and Verifiable Proportionality Axioms for Multiwinner Votingcited by 23
  8. 2023Proportional Aggregation of Preferences for Sequential Decision Makingcited by 17
  9. 2023Temporal Fairness in Multiwinner Votingcited by 14
  10. 2024Temporal Elections: Welfare, Strategyproofness, and Proportionalitycited by 11
  11. 2024Temporal Fair Division of Indivisible Itemscited by 11
  12. 2024Multiwinner Temporal Voting with Aversion to Changecited by 10
9 more
  1. 2025Verifying Proportionality in Temporal Votingcited by 9
  2. 2025Strengthening Proportionality in Temporal Votingcited by 9
  3. 2025Not in My Backyard! Temporal Voting Over Public Chorescited by 6
  4. 2017The Condorcet Principle for Multiwinner Elections: From Shortlisting to Proportionalitycited by 4
  5. 2026The Price of Proportional Representation in Temporal Votingcited by 3
  6. 2024Committee Monotonicity and Proportional Representation for Ranked Preferencescited by 2
  7. 2026Online Temporal Voting: Strategyproofness, Proportionality and Asymptotic Analysiscited by 1
  8. 2026Strengthening Full Justified Representation: Efficient Verification and Computationcited by 1
  9. 2026Temporal Fair Division of Indivisible Mixed Manna: Tractable Settingscited by 1

Built on by

Not cited yet.