Comment
116
This instance has not been fully validated.
Files
Parsed from META key comment using pattern #n: segments. Showing how many PB files share each comment. → View field specification
| Comment | # files | Files |
|---|---|---|
|
This instance has not been fully validated.
|
116 | |
|
The metadata regarding the age of voters shows very low values (starting from zero), indicating that one doesn't need to be an adult to vote: If a voter is under 13, they can vote with the consent of a parent or guardian. Hence, for example, age 0 likely corresponds to cases where parents/guardians are voting on behalf of their children.
|
113 | |
|
The rule is unknown, however, it was most likely a greedy rule.
|
100 | |
|
In Warszawa 2018, a project was eligible for implementation only if it received at least 10% of all valid votes cast in the given district or subarea. Therefore, the min_project_score_threshold is file-specific.
|
91 | |
|
If a given project has multiple coordinates, then the average over these coordinates is taken.
|
82 | |
|
This special greedy rule works as follows: At the beginning, we sort projects based on the number of votes. Then, we fund projects that received the highest number of votes until the next project on the list does not fit within the budget. Finally, if the remaining budget is enough to fund at least 80% of that project, we fund it as well with the external reserve funds (for example, the unused funds remaining in other districts). We mark such project with number 2 in the selected column.
|
58 | |
|
This special greedy rule works as follows: At the beginning, we sort projects based on the number of votes. Then, we fund projects that received the highest number of votes until the next project on the list does not fit within the budget. Finally, if the remaining budget is enough to fund at least 80% of that project, we fund it as well with the external reserve funds (for example, the unused funds remaining in other districts). We mark such project with number 2 in the selected column
|
44 | |
|
Sometimes, additional funds (for example, unused funds from other districts) are allocated to a district. These funds are used to finance the highest-voted projects that have not yet been selected. We mark such projects with number 3 in the selected column.
|
30 | |
|
The leftover_budget entry indicates how leftover budget is spent.
|
30 | |
|
Due to a voting system glitch, eight voters cast ballots for projects from the same category (e.g., two large projects in their district), violating regulations. To align with city-wide results, we tagged these voters with the prefix 999999 and separated their ballots into two distinct votes. The final election outcome was not affected.
|
29 | |
|
This is not the original data. Some voters (around 0.5%) were removed due to the ambiguity.
|
21 | |
|
Due to a voting system glitch, twelve voters mistakenly cast ballots for projects in two different districts, violating regulations. To align with city-wide results, we tagged these voters with the prefix 999999 and separated their ballots into two distinct votes. The final election outcome was not affected.
|
18 | |
|
Projects marked with selected=2 were funded as additional turnout-award projects under Gdynia's "Projekt +1" rule: one extra large project and two extra small projects are implemented in the districts with the highest voting turnout, using city funds outside the regular BO allocation.
|
15 | |
|
Sometimes, additional funds (for example, unused funds from other districts) are allocated to a district. These funds are used to finance the highest-voted projects that have not yet been selected. We mark such projects with number 3 in the selected column
|
7 | |
|
The budget_per_category is an upper bound on the sum cost of projects within a category selected by the voting rule.
|
5 | |
|
The min_project_cost is a requirement on projects to have some minimum cost.
|
4 | |
|
Due to regulations mandating a minimum of 50 votes for funding, some projects were not selected even though there was some money left.
|
3 | |
|
The max_sum_cost_per_category is an upper bound per vote on the sum cost of approved projects within each category. It is unclear whether the voting rule is also required to respect this budget per category.
|
3 | |
|
This dataset contains online votes only, however in the district of Józsefváros, about half the votes are cast on paper therefore official winners (indicated "selected=1") were not exclusively determined by the complete votes in the dataset. Approvals per project from the offline votes is indicated in column "extra_approvals"
|
3 | |
|
"neighborhood" indicated the (sub-)districts used, with 0 = "Entire district (of Józsefváros)". Each voter could approve maximum 2 projects in their own neighborhood and 1 in each of the other two neighborhoods as well as 1 for district-wide projects (0). However, voters did not need to submit 5 approvals, and the neighborhood-affiliation of each voter is not separately known, and therefore also not deducible for all voters.
|
2 | |
|
All internet votes and all paper votes were weighted such that both groups accounted for 50% of the outcome. No data is available on which voting method was used per vote.
|
2 | |
|
Due to a system error, project 285 was mistakenly categorized as a citywide before being accurately reclassified as a local one. However, during this time, it had gathered 141 votes, making it appear as though some voters had cast two votes for local projects. We separated them by adding the prefix 99999 to the voter_id, to be consistent with city results and to avoid having incorrect (i.e., too long) votes.
|
2 | |
|
Due to an error in the voting system, there were 4 voters with two local votes instead of one citywide and one local. The city counted them, so for the consistency of the results, we moved these four votes from the citywide to the local (added at the end with the prefix 11) and counted them as proper votes.
|
2 | |
|
Projects funded by leftover budget are not constrained by the budget_per_category.
|
2 | |
|
The max_sum_cost_per_category is an upper bound per vote on the sum cost of approved projects within each category.
|
2 | |
|
The min_project_cost is a requirement on projects to have some minimum cost. 5#: The leftover_budget entry indicates how leftover budget is spent.
|
2 | |
|
"neighborhood" indicated the (sub-)districts used, with 0 = "Entire district (of Józsefváros)". Each voter could approve maximum 3 projects in their own neighborhood and 1 in each of the other two neighborhoods as well as 2 for district-wide projects (0). However, voters did not need to submit 7 approvals, and the neighborhood-affiliation of each voter is not separately known, and therefore also not deducible for all voters.
|
1 | |
|
"neighborhood" indicated the (sub-)districts used. Each voter could approve maximum 2 projects in their own neighborhood and 1 in each of the other two neighborhoods. However, voters did not need to submit 4 approvals, and the neighborhood-affiliation of each voter is not separately known, and therefore also not deducible for all voters.
|
1 | |
|
According to published coverage of the official BO 2021 results for Ursynów, projects 459, 1687, and 2150 overlapped at the Kabaty area and could not all be implemented simultaneously. The official winner list retained project 2150, and this exclusion changes the subsequent greedy path. Therefore rule greedy-exclusive is applied.
|
1 | |
|
According to the official BO 2022 report, district project 1080 (Ursynów) and city-wide project 682 overlapped in two Ursynów locations (ul. Lokajskiego 3 and Park Jurajski) and could not be implemented simultaneously. The district project took precedence under § 46 ust. 5, so project 682 was not selected. This changes the subsequent greedy path, therefore rule greedy-exclusive is applied.
|
1 | |
|
According to the official BO 2022 report, projects 201 and 1932 both targeted the Serek Bielański area near metro Słodowiec and could not be implemented simultaneously. Project 201 received more votes and was recommended under § 46 ust. 5, so project 1932 was not selected. Therefore rule greedy-exclusive is applied.
|
1 | |
|
According to the official BO 2022 report, projects 773 and 153 both targeted the area near ul. Konarskiego and could not be implemented simultaneously. Project 773 received more votes and was recommended under § 46 ust. 5, so project 153 was not selected. Therefore rule greedy-exclusive is applied.
|
1 | |
|
Each voter could approve at most 3 projects in each category.
|
1 | |
|
Each voter could approve only 1 project in each category.
|
1 | |
|
For Ruda Slaska 2026, the small-project pool was initially 4,100,000 PLN and the large-project pool was 1,681,585 PLN. When the remaining amount in one pool was not enough for the next project of that type, the unused funds from both pools were combined and used to fund the next feasible project by score. Therefore, the effective budget recorded for the municipal small pool is 4,411,585 PLN.
|
1 | |
|
If there are unused funds remaining in any district or the citywide budget, they are aggregated and allocated to the district with the highest turnout. Therefore, we adjusted the budget from 194 431 to 236 277.
|
1 | |
|
If there are unused funds remaining in any district or the citywide budget, they are aggregated and allocated to the district with the highest turnout. Therefore, we adjusted the budget from 204 307 to 371 000.
|
1 | |
|
In the municipal small-project pool, projects 12 and 26 were treated by the city as mutually exclusive because they concern the same area. Project 12 was funded and project 26 was excluded because project 12 received the higher score.
|
1 | |
|
Initial budget was 4.6 million PLN. After unused district funds were transferred to the citywide pool (Resolution XXXVI/1155/21, Jan 2021), the budget increased to 5,715,627 PLN. Additional projects were then selected, though not strictly following the typical greedy rule.
|
1 | |
|
Initially, the budget for the citywide projects was set at 7,000,000. However, due to regulations, unused funds from district PBs were reallocated to citywide projects. Consequently, the citywide budget was increased to 7,605,325.
|
1 | |
|
Initially, the budget for the citywide projects was set at 8,000,000. However, due to regulations, unused funds from district PBs were reallocated to citywide projects. Consequently, the citywide budget was increased to 8,694,120.
|
1 | |
|
Initially, the budget for the citywide projects was set at 9,000,000. However, due to regulations, unused funds from district PBs were reallocated to citywide projects. Consequently, the citywide budget was increased to 9,632,750.
|
1 | |
|
Leftover budget was used to increase spending on Orcy tér by 5 M (smaller winning idea in neighborhood 3 to top-up spending in that neighborhood to 40 M) and in neighboorhod 2 by 1 M.
|
1 | |
|
Project 150 was withdrawn after the voting. In the file, we changed it to an artificial cost of '999999999' to ensure it is not selected by the greedy rule.
|
1 | |
|
Project 586 was free (cost 0). To keep data consistent and not to have 0-cost projects (may cause problems when processing data) we set its cost to an artificial value of 1.
|
1 | |
|
Project BO.D18.9/23 was withdrawn after the voting due to a cost mistake made by the project proposer, who wrote '325' instead of '325000'. In the file, we changed it to an artificial cost of '999999999'.
|
1 | |
|
Project L18/06/XI was withdrawn after voting due to planned thermomodernization works at the facility. In this file, its cost was changed to an artificial value of '999999999' to ensure it is not selected by the greedy rule.
|
1 | |
|
Project were not assigned a single cost, but one of 3 ranges: "below HUF 20 M", "HUF 20-50 M" and "HUF 50-100 M". For the purposes of this dataset, the sticker prices of 20 M, 40 M, and 80 M were assigned.
|
1 | |
|
Projects 42195 and 42190 had no cost specified in the original data: they were free (cost 0). To keep data consistent and not to have 0-cost projects (may cause problems when processing data) we set their costs to an artificial value of 1.
|
1 | |
|
The budget_per_neighbourhood is an upper bound on the sum cost of projects within a neighbourhood selected by the voting rule.
|
1 | |
|
The cost of Project 237 was exceeding the district budget (546 000), which should not have happened. Unfortunately, it was eligible to be voted on
|
1 | |
|
The leftover_budget entry indicates how leftover budget is spent. The leftover budget was supplemented by additional municipal funds to fully fund the extra project.
|
1 | |
|
The max_length_per_category is an upper bound per vote on number of approved projects within each category.
|
1 | |
|
The max_project_cost is a requirement on projects to have some maximum cost.
|
1 | |
|
The original cost of project W193ST was 785,700, which exceeded the district budget of 612,000, so the project should not have been admitted to the ballot. To keep the data consistent while making this situation explicit, the recorded cost was changed to the artificial value 999999999.
|
1 | |
|
There is a difference between the number of votes in the file (222) and the official results (223) for project 1242. Since the discrepancy concerns only one vote and the city could not identify the root cause, we kept the number from the file (222) to maintain internal consistency.
|
1 | |
|
This dataset contains online votes only, however in the district of Józsefváros, about half the votes are cast on paper therefore official winners (indicated "selected=1") were not exclusively determined by the complete votes in the dataset.
|
1 | |
|
This dataset contains online votes only. However, approximately 1% of the total votes were cast offline (via paper ballots). Since these votes are not included, the official winners were not determined exclusively by the data in this dataset.
|
1 | |
|
This dataset contains online votes only. However, approximately 10% of the total votes were cast offline (via paper ballots). Since these votes are not included, the official winners were not determined exclusively by the data in this dataset.
|
1 | |
|
Two plans tied for the last project to be funded. Additional municipal funds were used to fund both projects.
|
1 | |
|
Voter 18546706357 voted only for two projects (44405,44417) instead of three, therefore this vote was deleted to be consistent with vote length (min 3).
|
1 | |
|
When selected projects from different administrative levels (city-wide vs. district) target the same location and cannot be implemented simultaneously, the district-level project takes precedence according to municipal regulations (§ 46 ust. 4 of Resolution XI/218/2019). That is why projects 1390 (district level, Ursynów) and 1498 (city-wide) both involved AED installations in educational facilities in Ursynów. That is why project 1498 was not selected and rule greedy-exclusive is applied.
|
1 | |
|
Winners were selected according to the greedy rule, however: clearly, the maximum total maximum sticker prices were allowed to exceed the original budget.
|
1 | |
|
Winners were selected according to the strict greedy rule within categories, for "Modern" and "Zöld": 40M maximum each, for "Szabad" and "Gondoskodó" 20M each. Strict greedy rule: selection of winners stops as soon as the next project in not feasible. Budget not allocated if used for "backup list" winning projects selected via a standard greedy method used for "top-up" globally (across categories).
|
1 | |
|
Young people between the ages of 12 and 27 could vote
|
1 |