Overview
PVS and its advanced form, the Paired Proportional Weighted Voting System (PPWVS), offer a transparent, and fair alternative to outdated voting methods like First-Past-the-Post (FPTP) and Instant Runoff Voting (IRV). PVS ensures majority-supported outcomes using ranked-choice inputs and pairwise comparisons, while PPWVS adds proportional representation based on weighted legislative influence. PVS eliminates vote splitting, empowers voters, and reduces polarization.
________________________________________
Core Features
1. Ranked-Pair Voting (PVS):
o Voters rank choices from best to worst.
o All possible pairs of choices are compared to determine "wins," "ties," "FORS" “Choice Ratios” “Total Fors” and “Firsts
o Final rankings reflect majority preferential support across all matchups.
2. Proportional Representation (PPWVS):
o Builds on PVS by using "Choice Ratios" to proportionally assign legislative voting weights.
3. Condorcet Compliance:
o Always selects the correct ranking of choices even if there are Condorcet non-compliances.
4. "Will Not Do Choice" (WDC) Option:
o Lets voters reject all choices. If WDC wins, a re-election is triggered.
5. Transparency:
o Detailed breakdowns of vote metrics.
________________________________________
How It Works
1. Voter Input:
o Voters rank candidates; tied ranks and skipped entries are allowed.
2. Pairwise Comparison:
o Each pair (e.g., A vs B) is analyzed for relative support.
o FORS where Candidate X is preferred over candidate B are computed.
3. Candidate Ranking:
Ranked by:
1. Total WINS (>50% FORS per pairing)
2. Number of TIES
3. Total FORS
4. Choice Ratios
5. First-place votes (tiebreaker)
4. Legislative Weighting (PPWVS):
o Top two candidates FORS determine vote weights in legislative bodies assigned on a party Basis.
o Example: Candidate X with 55% FORS vs Y receives 0.55 voting weight.
________________________________________
Advantages Over Traditional Systems
Issue FPTP/IRV PVS/PPWVS
Minority Rule Winners can have <50% support Majority-backed outcomes guaranteed
Vote Splitting Common Eliminated through ranked input
Proportionality Lacking or weak Achieved via weighted representation
Voter Engagement Many wasted votes Every preferential ranking matters
Transparency Opaque processes Full visibility into pairwise data
________________________________________
Use Cases
1. Political Elections:
o Produces majority-supported winners; captures minority perspectives.
2. Corporate Governance:
o Enables fair, board selections with proportional shareholder votes.
3. Competitions & Awards:
o Aggregates judge rankings across categories using objective pairwise logic.
4. Community Decisions:
o Ideal for public budgets or policy debates requiring consensus.
________________________________________
Technical Features
• Security: Encrypted voting, real-time audits, tamper-proof logs.
• Scalability: Uses vote Shards to prevent write conflicts during the cloud calculations
• Localization: Multilingual support and regional adaptability.
________________________________________
Democracies Need PPWVS
• FPTP Fails: In 2015, 60% of Canadians voted against the winning party. PVS would have produced a majority-supported outcome.
• Reduces Polarization: Candidates must appeal to and be responsible to all voter bases.
• Universally Adaptable: Works for presidential, parliamentary, and hybrid systems.
________________________________________
Implementation Roadmap
1. Phase 1: Use PVS in single-winner races (e.g., mayoral).
2. Phase 2: Apply PPWVS for proportional legislative voting.
3. Phase 3: Expand to boards, competitions, and international organizations.
________________________________________
Get Involved
Try the PVS/PPWVS App on Google Play to:
• Simulate elections using ranked-pair logic
• Explore proportional representation models
• Educate stakeholders on democratic reform
"A true democracy requires a system where every vote shapes the outcome" – Denis J. Alarie