Revision as of 18:20, 23 May 2020 (view source) Aldo Tragni (talk \| contribs) (Added sections: Free Riding (and Surplus Handling), IWA example, Cardinal Voting (comparison). Removed "Related Systems - Cumulative voting" because it's already indicated in the initial description that it's a vote in Cumulative form. Removed "Related Systems - Baldwin's method" because the example concerned Borda and not DV; in this regard, a specific example for DV has been added in the "IWA example" section.) ← Older edit		Revision as of 09:27, 25 May 2020 (view source) Aldo Tragni (talk \| contribs) mNo edit summary Newer edit →
Line 160: By distributing points between 3 or more candidates, the Distributed Voting becomes increasingly different from the [[IRV]], because of normalization in the counting. ~~===[[Cardinal\|Cardinal Voting]]===~~ ~~Given a [[Cardinal\|Cardinal vote]] like A[10] B[4] C[2] (range [0,10]), candidate A is eliminated, because he is considered to be the worst candidate overall.~~ If the vote takes the form B[4] C[2] (leaving the vote unchanged), then a voting system equivalent to the [[Score Voting]] is obtained in which the single winner is from the beginning the candidate with the highest sum. If the vote takes the form B[10] C[5] or B[8] C[4] or B[6] C[4] or B[2] C[1], then a different voting system will be obtained. The problem is that all the forms of voting listed respect the relative interests of the voter, but at the same time, they can ultimately return a different single winner. The [[Cardinal voting systems]] solves this ambiguity by making an arbitrary choice, not decided by the voters. The problem described is avoided by Distributed Voting, because by removing a candidate, there is only one and unique way to proportionally redistribute the 100 points of the voter, respecting his relative interests. ==Forum Debate==

Distributed Voting: Difference between revisions

Distributed Voting (view source)

Revision as of 09:27, 25 May 2020