PRO-V: Difference between revisions

Line 2:

The objectives of this voting system is the balance between simplicity, resistance to strategies, elect utilitarian winner and provide the voter with a good representation of interests (range with 5 ratings).

⚫

===Name derivation===

⚫

PRO-nV: the PRO-V procedure works with ranges of different sizes and n indicates the amount of ratings used in the range.

⚫

*PRO-3V: uses 3 ratings.

⚫

*PRO-V: is the default definition, with 5 ratings.

⚫

*FAIR-9V: uses 9 ratings.

==Procedure==

Line 57:

Line 49:

[x1, x2, x3, x4, x5]

Adapting the scale to the context allows the voter to represent their interests well, maintaining simplicity in the vote (which always has only 5 ratings) and also more resistance to strategies.

⚫

===Name derivation===

⚫

PRO-nV: the PRO-V procedure works with ranges of different sizes and n indicates the amount of ratings used in the range.

⚫

*PRO-3V: uses 3 ratings.

⚫

*PRO-V: is the default definition, with 5 ratings.

⚫

*FAIR-9V: uses 9 ratings.

==Voting systems comparison==

Line 62:

===[[FAIR-V]]===

The proportional ratings of the PRO-V make the intermediate ratings more used by the voter, because eg. adding these two votes A[1] B[2] (B is worth double A) and A[4] B[2] (A is worth double B), candidates A and B are equal, unlike the methods that add up the scores. A single point can make a lot of difference. Taking this characteristic of the PRO-V into consideration, and following the analysis of the [[FAIR-V#Strategies_resistance|resistance to strategies in FAIR-V]], it can be seen that PRO-V is also resistant to strategies, but not as strong as FAIR-V which uses a range [0,2].

The proportional ratings of the PRO-V make the intermediate ratings more used by the voter, because eg. adding these two votes A[x1] B[x2] (B is worth double A) and A[x4] B[x2] (A is worth double B), candidates A and B are equal, unlike the methods that add up the scores. A single point can make a lot of difference. Taking this characteristic of the PRO-V into consideration, and following the analysis of the [[FAIR-V#Strategies_resistance|resistance to strategies in FAIR-V]], it can be seen that PRO-V is also resistant to strategies, but not as strong as FAIR-V which uses a range [0,2].

However, the PRO-V procedure is easier to understand than the FAIR-V one, and also offers a wider range of ratings to the voter.