Number of proposals multiple points per decision

Number of proposals based points allocation approach

Overview

The number of proposals would be multiplied by a number of points per proposal, such as 10 or 100. This would result in the total points that each voter is allocated.

Very high accuracy & expressiveness (Score - 5)

The number of proposals based approach would mean that each voter would get the same number of points to allocate. Having a large number of points could be effective for giving voters a more expressive way to allocate their voting power across a wide range of proposals. There would always be enough points to allocate as the number of points would increase as the number of proposals increase. Although this is a highly expressive approach it does not mean it is necessarily more effective as it could give voters many more points than are necessary to express their preferences.

High voting complexity (Score - 2)

The number of proposals could vary significantly from one decision to another. This is problematic as it would mean that the voting experience could be quite different each time due to the different amount of points a voter has to allocate in each decision. One benefit of this approach is that each voter would receive the same voting experience in a given decision, however the main complexity is that each decision would likely have a different amount of points to allocate.

High voting time required (Score - 2)

The number of proposals that get submitted for each decision could vary drastically over time. This could increase the amount of time it takes for every voter to participate as they might end up having a very large number of points to allocate. The number of points would also likely change each time they participate in a decision which could increase the time it takes for a voter to make an informed decision. To speed up their own participation, voters might decide to allocate their points very quickly without much consideration about the exact weighting they are allocating to each proposal or they might simply give a similar weighting to the proposals they prefer.

Moderate game theory risks (Score - 3)

If this approach adopts a fixed maximum allocation approach it would mean that the consolidation of voting power across a number of proposals would not give bad actors an increased influence. Bad actors could benefit from voting behaviours where voters dilute their voting power by allocating their points across more proposals than there are fillable positions. Not allocating points up to the maximum limit could mean bad actors get an advantage by always consolidating their voting power on their own proposals to increase their influence over the decision.

Total score = 12 / 20