> 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-proposal.md).
# Multiple points per proposal
**Overview**
Everyone is given the same number of points to allocate to each proposal. The points allocation is a single fixed number. It is not based on the information about the voter, their voting power or any other part of the proposals or decision. Example points allocations could be 5 points, 10 points or 100 points.
**High accuracy & expressiveness (Score - 4)**
Having multiple points means voters will be able to express the intensity of their preferences. All voters will also get the same experience. The lower the number the less the expressiveness but the lower the complexity. The main concern with this approach is that it could reduce accuracy outcomes as the voter is not required to compare proposals to decide how they want to allocate their points. They could allocate the full amount of points on each and every proposal. This is good for expressiveness but could come at the cost of reducing accuracy in selecting the most promising proposals.
**Low voting complexity (Score - 4)**
The voting process would be the same for every decision and for every vote meaning this approach is easy to learn and use repeatedly. Having larger numbers would slightly increase the complexity of allocating the points however not by a large amount.
**Low voting time required (Score - 4)**
Voters would become familiar with the number of points they can allocate so this would help with reducing the time it takes for voters to participate in each decision.
**Moderate game theory risks (Score - 3)**
Bad actors could benefit from voting behaviour where voters dilute their voting power by only using some of their allocated points on a proposal rather than their full voting power. This behaviour could help to increase the voting power of bad actors as they can benefit from always using their full voting power on any of their proposals.
**Total score = 15 / 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-proposal.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.