> For the complete documentation index, see [llms.txt](https://governance.treasuries.io/llms.txt). Markdown versions of documentation pages are available by appending `.md` to page URLs; this page is available as [Markdown](https://governance.treasuries.io/approaches/score-voting-approaches/points-allocation-approaches/multiple-points-per-decision.md).
# Multiple points per decision
**Overview**
Everyone is given the same number of points to allocate. The points allocation is a single fixed number. It is not based on any information about the voter, their voting power or any other part of the decision. Some example points allocations could be 10 points, 100 points or 500 points.
**High accuracy & expressiveness (Score - 4)**
A multiple points per decision approach would mean that each voter gets the same number of points to allocate in every decision. A large number of points could be effective at giving voters a highly expressive way to allocate their voting power across a wide range of proposals. The main problem with this approach is that the number of fillable positions can change in each decision. For decisions that have a large number of fillable positions the number of points that a voter receives to allocate might not be sufficient to enable voters to express their preferences.
**Moderate voting complexity (Score - 3)**
The voting process would be the same for every decision which helps to reduce the complexity for voters and make it easier to learn and use this approach repeatedly. The main complexity with this approach is the number of proposals submitted could change drastically between decisions. In these situations it might be more challenging to allocate the same number of points across a changing amount of proposals each time.
**Moderate voting time required (Score - 3)**
Voters would become familiar with the number of points to allocate, however for each decision they would need to compare the proposals to make a decision on how to allocate a single set of points between them. They would need to consider how many proposals they are going to approve and how they intend to split the points between the proposals they are going to approve.
**Moderate game theory risks (Score - 3)**
Bad actors could benefit from voting behaviour where voters dilute their voting power by allocating their points across more proposals than there are fillable positions. This behaviour can help to increase the intensity of the bad actors' voting power on influencing the decision outcome as they could benefit from using all of their full voting power on their own proposals.
**Total score = 13 / 20**
---
# Agent Instructions
This documentation is published with GitBook. GitBook is the documentation platform designed so that both humans and AI agents can read, navigate, and reason over technical content effectively. Learn more at gitbook.com.
## Querying This Documentation
If you need additional information that is not directly available in this page, you can query the documentation dynamically by asking a question.
Perform an HTTP GET request on the current page URL with the `ask` query parameter, and the optional `goal` query parameter:
```
GET https://governance.treasuries.io/approaches/score-voting-approaches/points-allocation-approaches/multiple-points-per-decision.md?ask=&goal=
```
`ask` is the immediate question: it should be specific, self-contained, and written in natural language.
`goal` is optional and describes the broader end goal you are ultimately trying to accomplish on behalf of the user. GitBook uses it to tailor the answer towards what is most useful for that goal.
The response will contain a direct answer to the question and relevant excerpts and sources from the documentation.
Use this mechanism when the answer is not explicitly present in the current page, you need clarification or additional context, or you want to retrieve related documentation sections.