1: \begin{abstract}

2: Understanding the nature of strategic voting is the holy grail of social choice theory, where game-theory, social science and recently  computational approaches are all applied in order to model the incentives and behavior of voters.

3: 

4: In a recent paper, Meir et al.~\shortcite{MLR14} made another step in this direction, by suggesting a behavioral game-theoretic model for voters under uncertainty. For a specific variation of best-response heuristics, they proved initial existence and convergence results in the Plurality voting system.

5: 

6: %, where voters observe candidates' prospective scores (e.g., the results of a poll or a previous round), and believe that the true scores are within some range of those. Voters  refrain from actions that are \emph{locally-dominated}, i.e., dominated according to their beliefs. %Meir et al. show that when voters with the same beliefs start from the truthful profile and may change their vote in turns,  the game must converge to an equilibrium. 

7: In this paper, we extend the model in multiple directions, considering voters with different uncertainty levels, simultaneous strategic decisions, and a more permissive notion of best-response. We prove that a voting equilibrium exists even in the most general case. Further, any society voting in an iterative setting is guaranteed to converge.

8: 

9: We also analyze an alternative behavior where voters try to minimize their worst-case regret. We show that the two behaviors coincide in the simple setting of Meir et al., but not in the general case. 

10: \end{abstract}

11: