Distributed 2-Voting criticism?

I created this variant of DV: Distributed 2-Voting, which also handles negative scores, offering a total representation of interests.

Do you think there is any problem in this method?

In this method, candidates without score (unknown ones) receive 0 points by default even in converted votes, so they aren’t favored in any way.
The candidates to whom the voter would like to give 0 points instead, will have to receive at least -1 or +1, this to avoid that they are treated as unknown candidates.

I already know that monotony fails, so avoid that criticism.

Forcing voters to rate every candidate is unreasonable, especially in multiwinner elections.

Especially in the multiwinner elections there are many candidates to choose from, and a voter is likely not to be well informed about all candidates.
The less informed a candidate is, the more random his vote will be, therefore rather than obliging to evaluate all candidates it’s better to accept that some of them will not be evaluated because they are unknown by the voter.

Without the 0 in the range, the D2V can manage both cases with unknown candidates (not scored), and cases with only known candidates (all scored); simply a voter cannot say that for him a candidate is perfectly neutral using 0.
If perfectly neutral doesn’t exist, then it would make sense for the voter to use -1 or +1 instead of 0 (it’s like an obligation to vote more honestly).

In addition, a voter accustomed to votes with a single choice or multiple choice could use them (choosing +9 as the score of the candidates who would put X, and leaving the others not evaluated).

This system does not do that.

But if I wanted to express being neutral on a candidate I can just pretend they are unknown to me.

It definitely seems better than normal DV. It might, however, make it too easy for cult leaders to win:
1000 voters: A[+100] B[-100] C=unknown
1000 voters: A[-100] B[+100] C=unknown
80 cultists: A[-50] B[-50] C[+100]

(A and B get -4000. C gets 8000. Eliminating either A or B just makes the other lose even more points.)
Of course, this fails if either (1) the main factions are imbalanced (here, if at least 81 A-voters move to B, or 161 new B-voters turn out) or (2) a fourth candidate has stronger appeal (here, if D could somehow eliminate A and B and end up over 8000) or (3) if some voters in the A and B factions realized how bad C was and put some negative points on C… altho this is risky (unless the cult is worse than the enemy faction) because it requires moving negative points away from the opposite faction!

1 Like

No, D2V assumes that perfect neutrality doesn’t exist, so you’ll use +1 or -1.
I could also put 0 in the range, and say that unevaluated candidates automatically have -9, but so you risk a voter giving 0 to all unknown or semi-unknown candidates (by mistake). Without the 0 it is much easier to make him understand that unknown candidates should not be evaluated.
The lack of 0 is mainly to avoid ambiguity.

1000 voters: A [+100] B [-100] C = unknown
1000 voters: A [-100] B [+100] C = unknown
80 cultists: A [-50] B [-50] C [+100]

You have badly converted the votes; look at the image here.
The normalized vote is divided into two votes, positive and negative, in which there are no negative values (it’s called negative vote because it only contains disapproved candidates).

In short, only positive votes are used in counting.
If (eliminating the worst) in the positive vote only candidates with 0 points remain, then replace it with the negative vote.
It’s called “2-Voting” because in reality the red and green parts of the paper ballot are used to actually create 2 separate Distributed Votes.