Source author record

Pietro Speroni di Fenizio

Pietro Speroni di Fenizio appears in the imported research catalog. Authorship, coauthor and topic links are available while profile ownership is still unclaimed.

ResearcherUnclaimed source record

Catalog footprint

What is connected

2works
7topics
2close collaborators

Actions

Connect this record

Log in to claim

Research graph

See the researcher in context

Open full explorer

Inspect adjacent papers, topics, institutions and collaborators without losing the researcher page.

Building this map preview

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

Published work

2 published item(s)

preprint2016arXiv

A Majoritarian Representative Voting System

We present an alternative voting system that aims at bridging the gap between proportional representative systems and majoritarian, single winner election systems. The system lets people vote for multiple parties, but then assigns each ballot to a single party. This opens a whole range of possible systems, all representative. We show theoretically that this space is convex. Then among the possible parliaments we present an algorithm to produce the most majoritarian result. We then test the system and compare the results with a pure proportional and a majoritarian voting system showing how the results are comparable with the majoritarian system. Then we simulate the system and show how it tends to produce parties of exponentially decreasing size with always a first, major party. Finally we describe how the system can be used in a context of a parliament made up of two separate houses.

preprint2016arXiv

System-Generated Requests for Rewriting Proposals

We present an online deliberation system using mutual evaluation in order to collaboratively develop solutions. Participants submit their proposals and evaluate each other's proposals; some of them may then be invited by the system to rewrite 'problematic' proposals. Two cases are discussed: a proposal supported by many, but not by a given person, who is then invited to rewrite it for making yet more acceptable; and a poorly presented but presumably interesting proposal. The first of these cases has been successfully implemented. Proposals are evaluated along two axes-understandability (or clarity, or, more generally, quality), and agreement. The latter is used by the system to cluster proposals according to their ideas, while the former is used both to present the best proposals on top of their clusters, and to find poorly written proposals candidates for rewriting. These functionalities may be considered as important components of a large scale online deliberation system.