Aggregation Results Dashboard
Group Representation — All 4 Combinations Funded projects per group vs. proportional ideal
Shows the number of funded projects from each regional group. The background boxes show the "fair share" based on group size. MES ensures a much fairer regional split than a simple Mean Score.
Voter Representation by Winning Outcome Number of funded projects each voter approved (Ja or EherJa) — n=24 voters
Shows how many winning projects each voter actively liked ("Ja" or "Eher Ja"). A fairer outcome means more people get roughly the same number of projects. A flatter curve means voters are winning a very wide range of projects, leaving some people with almost nothing and others with a lot.
Gini Coefficient (Inequality)
Rates the inequality of the chart to the left. A score of 0.0 is perfect equality; higher numbers are worse. Local MES delivers the fairest outcome for all voters.
Voting Receipts How each voter's rating influenced the funded outcome
For MES combinations, shows the exact budget your equal share spent on each funded project.
For Score combinations, shows your proportional influence — how much of each funded project's winning score came from you.
Combination
Project Rankings — 4-Way Comparison
Columns
Global Score
Global MES
Local Score
Local MES
Loading…
Combinations Context: Toggle methods to watch clusters reorganize. (Scroll to zoom, drag to pan.)
Intersection Stats
Distribution of Scores per Group
Shows how strictly each group graded their projects. The diamond is the group average. Groups that vote "harsher" (lower average) are heavily disadvantaged if all projects compete globally instead of locally.
Composition of Votes Cast
Breaks down exactly how often each group used each rating. Some groups give lots of extreme "Ja" or "Nein" votes, while others stick to the moderate options.