PREFERENCE@ offers publishing, consultation of opinion polls with high added value without loss of societal intelligence.
The processing of the results, thanks to an algorithm * based on the use of the vote of preference, allows an accurate analysis of the opinions and rational collective decision-making.
” Expression of an order of preferences
” Aggregation and measurement of collective preferences
” Intelligent consensus production
” The guarantee of quality decision-making and the richest information
Let’s look at an example :
An entity must choose the color of its logo; it decides to question its closest and most impacted partners via a simple choice (single-member ballot) and obtains the following results:
Red : 46%
Green : 42%
Blue : 12%
These same partners then classify the colors in order of preference and we get the following results:
46% of customers rank : Red Green Blue
42% of customers rank : Green Bleu Red
12% of customers rank : Blue Green Red
(If rank 1 is taken into account, we find the results of the single-member ballot)
Let’s measure the results for each level of preference (P)
P1 P2 P3
Red : 46% 00% 54%
Green : 42% 58% 00%
Blue : 12% 42% 46%
We observe that Green is the color that reaches a consensus * of 100% preferably from the 2nd rank, while at the same rank level, Blue comes in second with 54% and the last is Red with 46%.
“Therefore, in order to satisfy the greatest number, our entity taken as an example will be able to choose or not the Green? …. “
” Ranking in order of preference
” The possibility of tying or equaling the preferences without limit
” To leave a preference rank or several voids
” And to formally reject one or more proposed choices
Example of presentation with 4 tracks of preference and the rejection module (we position the tracks here by dragging them with his mouse) :
– Track 1 is first on a single-member ballot when in reality it generates the least satisfaction, a medium regret and a very weak consensus.
– On a single-member ballot the other alternatives are tied for 2nd rank.
– Moreover, Track 3 is a very qualitative choice whatever the objective since 1st in Satisfaction +, 1st tie in Regret – and in 1st Consensus.
Reading the results:
3 possible reading axes
Maximise satisfaction +: allows to highlight the most supported alternatives, most often well ranked. By deciding along this axis, the decision-maker will generate a strong contentment from a maximum of voters and potentially some dissatisfied.
Minimise regret: highlights the least often rejected and / or poorly ranked alternatives. On this axis the decision-maker will take a more secure position; he is sure not to create discontent but will not potentially generate strong commitment / content on the part of the voters.
Consensus: it’s the middle ground that will maximise satisfaction and minimise voter regret. This procedure creates a large core of satisfied voters, few very satisfied and few very dissatisfied.
To emphasise that it is not a question of 3 different results but of 3 axes of reading of the same result!
«PREFERENCE@ provides the most precise and respectful result of the expressed opinions, its 3 axes of reading allow the establishment of a real reflection and bring information with high-added value; it is a formidable tool of expression and decision support that is available in all situations.
PREFERENCE@ allows the decision-makers to make the best choices …
* Info Algorithm: The algorithm used is based on the use of preference vote:
It solves the paradox of Condorcet
It respects the 5 criteria of rationality of ARROW (non-dictatorship, totality, independence, universality, unanimity)
* definition of consensus: Agreement and consent of the greatest number, and public opinion: Social consensus. Procedure which consists in reaching an agreement without proceeding to a formal vote, which avoids showing objections and abstentions.