Jump to content

PRO-V: Difference between revisions

no edit summary
No edit summary
No edit summary
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 ⟶ 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[1x1] B[2x2] (B is worth double A) and A[4x4] B[2x2] (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.
206

edits

Cookies help us deliver our services. By using our services, you agree to our use of cookies.