Skip to main content

Voting types

Overview​

Chromia governance primarily uses majority voting with quorum to ensure fair and decentralized decision-making. A proposal passes if it secures more than X% of votes, with specific variations:

  • Quorum-based majority voting: Requires a minimum number of voters for a valid outcome.
  • Simple majority voting: Only considers the percentage of "yes" votes, without a quorum requirement.

Types of voting in Chromia governance​

Majority voting​

A proposal passes if it receives more than a specified percentage of "yes" votes.

  • Use case: Common in democratic governance.
  • Pros: Simple and widely understood.
  • Cons: May allow proposals to pass with low participation if no quorum is required.

Quorum-based voting​

A proposal is only valid if it reaches a minimum number of votes (quorum).

  • Use case: Ensures decisions have sufficient participation.
  • Pros: Prevents a small group from making major decisions.
  • Cons: Can delay progress if voter turnout is low.

Supermajority voting​

Requires a higher threshold (e.g., ⅔ or ¾ approval) for a proposal to pass.

  • Use case: Structural changes like governance rule amendments.
  • Pros: Ensures strong consensus.
  • Cons: Harder to pass, potentially slowing down decision-making.

Lazy voting​

Proposals pass by default unless a specific number of participants vote against them.

  • Use case: Reduces voter fatigue in systems with frequent proposals.
  • Pros: Increases efficiency and speeds up decisions.
  • Cons: Risk of unintended approvals if users remain inactive.

Unanimous voting​

All eligible voters must vote "yes" for a proposal to pass.

  • Use case: High-stakes decisions (e.g., constitutional changes).
  • Pros: Guarantees full consensus.
  • Cons: A single dissenting vote can block the proposal, leading to deadlock.

Plurality voting​

The option with the most votes wins, even if it does not receive a majority.

  • Use case: Multi-option proposals.
  • Pros: Enables multiple choices in governance.
  • Cons: A winner may emerge with less than 50% support, leading to fragmented results.

Ranked-choice voting​

Voters rank proposals by preference. If no option wins outright, votes are redistributed.

  • Use case: Elections and proposals with multiple competing options.
  • Pros: Reduces vote splitting and promotes compromise.
  • Cons: More complex to implement and count.

Weighted voting​

Voting power is determined by stake, token balance, or other predefined criteria.

  • Use case: Chromia governance can configure voting power based on CHR holdings, stake, or hybrid models.
  • Pros: Reflects varying levels of commitment and investment.
  • Cons: Risk of centralization if power is concentrated among a few users.

Veto voting​

Certain users (e.g., admins or counselors) can block a proposal even if it receives majority support.

  • Use case: Chromia governance allows admins or counselors to veto during a designated period.
  • Pros: Adds an additional layer of review and oversight.
  • Cons: Can limit decentralized decision-making.

Approval voting​

Voters can approve multiple proposals, and the option with the most approvals wins.

  • Use case: Suitable for scenarios where multiple proposals can coexist.
  • Pros: Encourages broad representation of preferences.
  • Cons: May dilute vote impact if users approve too many proposals.