Distributed Score Voting: Difference between revisions

Content added Content deleted
(User:Aldo Tragni, you can use interwiki links instead of URLs)
(Change formulas in points 5 and 6 of the vote count.)
Line 7: Line 7:


==Procedure==
==Procedure==
[[File:DVS procedure.jpg|thumb|DSV counting]]
[[File:DVS counting.jpg|alt=|thumb|DSV counting]]

===Voting===
===Voting===
Each voter has 100 points to distribute among the candidates according to his preferences.
Each voter has 100 points to distribute among the candidates according to his preferences.
Line 26: Line 27:
3) Convert the votes into a range form, assigning 0 points to the candidates with the lowest score and normalizing the remaining candidates, using the following formula:
3) Convert the votes into a range form, assigning 0 points to the candidates with the lowest score and normalizing the remaining candidates, using the following formula:


M = candidate with the highest score, before normalization.
M = highest score among the candidates in the vote, before normalization.


v0 = current value of candidate C, to be normalized.
v0 = current value of candidate C, to be normalized.
Line 43: Line 44:
5) If you want to have more winners, then remove the single-winner from all original votes, repeating the whole procedure from point 1.
5) If you want to have more winners, then remove the single-winner from all original votes, repeating the whole procedure from point 1.


The value W of each original vote is reduced by the points assigned to the removed candidate.
The value W of each original vote changes according to the following formula:

M = highest score among the candidates in the vote.

e = candidate's score eliminated.

W0 = previous value of W

W1 = new value of W

<math>
\begin{equation}
W1=W0+100\left( 1-\frac{e}{M}\right)
\end{equation}</math>


By repeating this process several times, you can get as many winners as you like, which will be those removed in point 5.
By repeating this process several times, you can get as many winners as you like, which will be those removed in point 5.


6) If you want to know the % of victory of the winning candidates then, in each original vote, you must remove all the candidates who haven’t won, and normalize the vote with the formula used in point 3 (with W=100 fixed). The sum of points for each candidate will indicate the % of victory.
6) If you want to know the % of victory of the winning candidates then, in each original vote, you must remove all the candidates who haven’t won, and normalize each vote with the following formula:

S = sum of the points left in the vote.

v0 = current value of candidate C, to be normalized.

v1 = value of candidate C, after normalization.

<math>
\begin{equation}
v1=\frac{v0}{S} \cdot 100
\end{equation}</math>

The sum of points for each candidate will indicate the % of victory.


===Head-to-head===
===Head-to-head===
Line 86: Line 113:
==Criteria==
==Criteria==


Criteria met by DSV:
Criteria met by DSV (single-winner):


*[[Majority criterion]]
*[[Majority criterion]]
Line 100: Line 127:
*[[Pareto criterion]]
*[[Pareto criterion]]


Criteria not met by DSV:
Criteria not met by DSV (single-winner):


*[[Participation criterion]]
*[[Participation criterion]]
*[[Consistency criterion]]
*[[Consistency criterion]]
*[[Later-no-harm criterion]]
*[[Later-no-help criterion]]
*[[Later-no-help criterion]]
*[[Favorite betrayal criterion]]
*[[Favorite betrayal criterion]]


The first two criteria not met are derived mainly from the fact that DSV wants to ensure the victory of the candidate who wins all the head-to-head (when it exists).
The first two unmet criteria are derived mainly from the fact that DSV wants to ensure the victory of the candidate who wins all the head-to-head (when it exists).


The last 3 unmet criteria can instead generate tactical votes, described below.
The last two unmet criteria can instead generate tactical votes, described below.


===Tactical votes===
===Tactical votes===