Distributed Multi-Voting: Difference between revisions
Content added Content deleted
Psephomancy (talk | contribs) (Please add categories to new articles to keep things organized) |
Aldo Tragni (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
Line 185:
The DMV in any case meets the [[Independence of Worst Alternatives|IWA]].
===
Meets Honesty criterion under the same assumptions as the [[Distributed Voting#Tactical vote resistance|Distributed Voting]].
This system also tries to satisfy the Perfect Honesty criterion, by applying a conversion of the vote which serves to drastically reduce the deviation from the honest vote.
The way in which the converted vote is obtained means that the voter doesn’t have a great interest in accumulating their points all on the same candidate. In cases [1] and [2] it’s noted that the addition of 1 point on B, left the score of A practically unchanged in the converted vote, but in case [2] it obtained 303 points for B (same speech observing the case [3] or even [5] ); this means that the voter has an interest in expressing his preference towards B. At the same time, the voter doesn’t even have the interest of giving his limited points to candidates he doesn’t really support (reduced dispersion of points) .▼
Example
Candidates: [A B C D E]
Honest vote: [50 30 15 5 0]
Tactical vote: [90 6 3 1 0]
Honest converted vote: [1118 820 486 176 0] Points sum = 2600
Tactical covert vote: [1434 622 390 153 0] Points sum = 2600
Absolute difference: [316 198 96 23 0] Points sum = 633
633 out of 2600 is around 25%.
On average, about 75% of the vote is honest at the start of the counting, even if the voter used a tactical vote. A good representation of interests is also provided.
'''Other properties'''
▲
[[Category:Cardinal voting methods]]
[[Category:Single-winner voting methods]]
|