Skip to content

Tennessee Capital — classic STAR example

Generated from 09_c4_b100_tennessee-capital.yaml — do not edit by hand. Regenerate: python STARVote_LH_tabulation_engine/tools_adam/scripts/build_yaml_pages.py.

Method: STAR (single winner) · 1 seat · Expected winner: Nashville

Scenario

The textbook Tennessee example. Memphis has the plurality (42%) but is too far from everyone else; Nashville, the central consensus choice, wins both the score round and the runoff. Shows why STAR rewards broad support over a large but isolated faction.

Ballots

Row 1 = candidate names; each later row is one voter's 0–5 scores (a N × prefix = N identical ballots).

Memphis,Nashville,Chattanooga,Knoxville
42: 5, 4, 3, 2
26: 2, 5, 4, 3
15: 2, 3, 5, 4
17: 2, 3, 4, 5

What the engine says

The count, step by step — the rounds and how the winner is reached:

[Divergence from STAR]
  STAR                   = Nashville
  Choose-One (Plurality) = Memphis   (differs from STAR)
  RCV-IRV                = Knoxville   (differs from STAR)
  Note: no ballots had tied scores, so RCV-IRV vs STAR here is a genuine
        method difference, not a tie-breaking artifact.
  Note: Ranked Robin (RCV-RR) agrees with STAR, so RCV-IRV is the lone
        outlier — the classic center-squeeze signature.
  Full round-by-round reports (generated for review):
  RCV-IRV rounds: cases_tabulated/09_c4_b100_tennessee-capital_RCV-IRV_tabulated.txt

--- STAR Voting Method (single winner) ---

[STAR Voting]
 Tabulating 100 ballots.
Count × Memphis,Nashville,Chattanooga,Knoxville
   42 ×       5,        4,          3,        2
   26 ×       2,        5,          4,        3
   17 ×       2,        3,          4,        5
   15 ×       2,        3,          5,        4

[STAR Voting: Scoring Round]
 The two highest-scoring candidates advance to the next round.
   Nashville     -- 394 -- First place
   Chattanooga   -- 373 -- Second place
   Memphis       -- 326
   Knoxville     -- 307
 Nashville and Chattanooga advance.

[STAR Voting: Automatic Runoff Round]
 The candidate preferred in the most head-to-head matchups wins.
   Nashville     -- 68 -- First place
   Chattanooga   -- 32
   Equal Support --  0
 Nashville wins.
   Runoff math:
     100  ballots cast
   −   0  Equal Support (no preference between the two finalists)
     ───
     100  voters with a preference  (majority = 51)
           Nashville 68 (68%)  ·  Chattanooga 32 (32%)

[STAR Voting: Winner — STAR Voting Method (single winner)]
 Nashville

Full audit — preference matrix, Condorcet, and score distribution

--- Runoff (Preference) Matrix ---
Head-to-head / pairwise comparison
Legend: For - Equal Support - Against
        * indicates Top 2 Finalist
                    |      Memphis    |  * Nashville   | * Chattanooga  |    Knoxville   |
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Memphis > |       ---       | 42 -  0 - 58   | 42 -  0 - 58   | 42 -  0 - 58   |
      * Nashville > |  58 -  0 - 42   |      ---       | 68 -  0 - 32   | 68 -  0 - 32   |
    * Chattanooga > |  58 -  0 - 42   | 32 -  0 - 68   |      ---       | 83 -  0 - 17   |
        Knoxville > |  58 -  0 - 42   | 32 -  0 - 68   | 17 -  0 - 83   |      ---       |

[Condorcet Winner]
  Condorcet Winner: Nashville — matches the STAR winner

[Condorcet Loser]
  Condorcet Loser: Memphis — loses every head-to-head matchup — elected by Choose-One (Plurality)!

[Score Distribution] (how many ballots gave each star rating)
                     Score
Candidate     5   4   3   2   1   0  | Total   Avg
Memphis      42   0   0  58   0   0  |   326   3.3
Nashville    26  42  32   0   0   0  |   394   3.9
Chattanooga  15  43  42   0   0   0  |   373   3.7
Knoxville    17  15  26  42   0   0  |   307   3.1

Everything in one file: the _tabulated mirror (regenerated on every run; every analysis forced on).

Run it yourself:

python STARVote_LH_tabulation_engine/starvote_larry_hastings.py 01_STAR/02_Examples/cases/09_c4_b100_tennessee-capital.yaml

See also

More cases in this set: 02a_c3_b1_three-candidates · 02b_c3_b2_three-candidates · 03a_c3_b3_style-bullet-vote · 03b_c3_b3_1_style-protest-vote · 03b_c3_b3_2_expand_style-protest-vote · 03c_c6_b8_style-gallery · 03d_c5_b5_style-gallery-five-more · 04b_c4_b3_display-options-all · 05a_c5_b3_unanimous-ballots · 06a_c9_b3_large-field-equal-support · 06b_c9_runoff-overturns-leader · abstentions · bv2182_tg4779_faq_runoff_reversal · bv2184_fyy886_lunch_vote · bv2187_qrw6wb_ann-bob-cal · bv2256_c8h3tb_traditional_style · bv2263_xw23m9_over_50_percent · csv_ambiguity_ex1_c4_b8 · display_options_demo · equal_support_runoff_demo · quorum_demo_c3_b6 · quorum_fail_demo_c3_b6 · same_mean_different_spread_c2_b5 · star_ala_approval · three_winners_cw_score_runoff · vote_splitting · vote_splitting2 · vote_splitting3 · vote_splitting_scenario1_spoiler · vote_splitting_scenario2_bloc_leads · vote_splitting_scenario3_outsider_wins