Condorcet voting

Csaba Madarász 23/01/2019 10:06

Unfortunately the debate functionality uses plural voting only. The plan is to develop a module which uses the nominees gathered with the debate module, and conduct condorcet voting on them. The sortitions module have some similar functionalities, so modifying it is a possible way to go. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Condorcet_method

Filter results for: Funds

Comment

Avatar: Xabier

Avatar: txema

Avatar: Daniel

Avatar: roxu

Avatar: Alessandro Rodi

Liked by Xabier and 4 more

Liked by

Avatar: Xabier Xabier Decidim Member

Avatar: txema txema Decidim Member

Avatar: Daniel Daniel Decidim Member

Avatar: roxu roxu

Avatar: Alessandro Rodi Alessandro Rodi

Comment details

You are seeing a single comment

View all comments

Csaba Madarász

13/02/2019 10:56

Hi! So in this case, do you have an already implemented way of promoting possible developments beside the roadmap? I have an assumption, that decidim could be itself a good platform to manage this - even to raise the issue in members through a process, and to find partners for certain, out of the roadmap possible features and functions. Maybe I am wrong, but looking for your input.

Carol Romero Decidim Member

13/02/2019 11:38

Hi @mcsaba!
Yes, in fact this process is the space to propose, discuss and agree on new developments (also to find possible partners). What makes them become part of the roadmap is basically that they have funding (and the review by the Product team).

Xabier Decidim Member

18/02/2019 13:21

Exactly. Different institutions and developers make here suggestion so as to how to improve Decidim. These are latter moved to Github for production.

Oliver Valls

20/02/2019 11:00

Hi all,
We may be able to find some financement to improve the vote counting in consultations.
Our idea is to find a group of organizations that partner together to finance the developments in a common effort.

Maybe we can do a deeper analysis of what are the different existing vote counting algoriths, see where they can be applied and look for a transversal solution along all components with this need.

I think that the only affected components are Consultations/Questions and Proposals. I'm discarding comments but I'm not sure. Any other?

Virgile Deville

20/02/2019 11:18

At Open Source Politics we also face these kind of demands : preferential voting, majority judgement voting. @lucas_hamani is currently exploring these possibilities maybe he can share more

13/03/2019 11:38

I would love to hear anything about it @lucas_hamani

Lucas Hamani

15/03/2019 17:25

@mcsaba
We haven't done much yet since our clients requests are about very different use cases from one another.

So far we focused on introducing preferential voting within the budget component through a module of ours which is "Vote per project". We haven't had the chance to send this module to the master. I hope we'll correct that really really soon.

Our "Vote per project" enables the admin to shift the participant focus on the projects rather than the budget allocated to them when voting for a participatory budget. It works the following way :

Participants are asked to vote for a number projects of his choosing regardless of the budget allocated to them. The number of projects to be selected is set by the admin in the budget component back office.
Once the vote is closed, the winning projects are all the projects the most voted for within the total budget limit.

The other advantage of this vote method being it that it is much simpler to enact offline simultaneously. It is much easier for a participant to choose any number of projects among many rather than do some maths to make sure the projects he chose are within the budget limit.

Unfortunately I can't direct you to a live example since none of our clients doing a participatory budget are in the voting phase.

To introduce preferential voting through this module, we thought about adding a weight to each projects selected by a participant according to the order he selected them. The first project selected being the most wanted by the participant, the fifth one being the least wanted by the participant among his choices.

Essential

Preferences

Analytics and statistics

Marketing

Condorcet voting

Liked by

Please log in

Cookie settings

Essential

Preferences

Analytics and statistics

Marketing

Condorcet voting

Share

QR Code