Skip to content

BV2184 — The team lunch vote

Generated from bv2184_fyy886_lunch_vote.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: Pizza

▶ Live on BetterVoting: vote · results ↗ (election fyy886 · test BV2184).

Scenario

The beginner's running example (STAR — start here). Five coworkers pick lunch from Sushi, Tacos, or Pizza. Two love Sushi, two love Tacos — and everyone is perfectly happy with Pizza. Under Choose-One each person names ONE favorite, so the vote splits (Sushi 2, Tacos 2, Pizza 1) and Pizza — the option nobody objected to — comes LAST; a coin flip hands lunch to Sushi or Tacos and half the team is stuck with something they rated 0. STAR reads the whole ballot: Pizza tops the Scoring Round (17) and wins the runoff 3-2. The compromise everyone can live with wins, and no one had to vote strategically. (Choose-One and RCV-IRV both elect Sushi here; STAR elects Pizza.)

Ballots

The ballots as marked — the filled bubble is the score given, and the score is the number in its column:

# Ballot as marked Sushi Tacos Pizza
1 A 0–5 STAR ballot — Voter 1: Sushi 5, Tacos 0, Pizza 3. 5 0 3
2 A 0–5 STAR ballot — Voter 2: Sushi 5, Tacos 0, Pizza 3. 5 0 3
3 A 0–5 STAR ballot — Voter 3: Sushi 0, Tacos 5, Pizza 3. 0 5 3
4 A 0–5 STAR ballot — Voter 4: Sushi 0, Tacos 5, Pizza 3. 0 5 3
5 A 0–5 STAR ballot — Voter 5: Sushi 3, Tacos 1, Pizza 5. 3 1 5

The same ballots as the file records them:

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

Sushi,Tacos,Pizza
5,0,3
5,0,3
0,5,3
0,5,3
3,1,5

What the engine says

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

[Divergence from STAR]
  STAR                   = Pizza
  Choose-One (Plurality) = Sushi   (differs from STAR)
  RCV-IRV                = Sushi   (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/bv2184_fyy886_lunch_vote_RCV-IRV_tabulated.txt

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

[STAR Voting]
 Tabulating 5 ballots.
Count × Sushi,Tacos,Pizza
    2 ×     5,    0,    3
    2 ×     0,    5,    3
    1 ×     3,    1,    5

[STAR Voting: Scoring Round]
 The two highest-scoring candidates advance to the next round.
   Pizza         -- 17 -- First place
   Sushi         -- 13 -- Second place
   Tacos         -- 11
 Pizza and Sushi advance.

[STAR Voting: Automatic Runoff Round]
 The candidate preferred in the most head-to-head matchups wins.
   Pizza         -- 3 -- First place
   Sushi         -- 2
   Equal Support -- 0
 Pizza wins.
   Runoff math:
     5  ballots cast
   − 0  Equal Support (no preference between the two finalists)
     ─
     5  voters with a preference  (majority = 3)
           Pizza 3 (60%)  ·  Sushi 2 (40%)

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

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
               |  * Sushi   |   Tacos   | * Pizza   |
-----------------------------------------------------
     * Sushi > |    ---     |3 - 0 - 2  |2 - 0 - 3  |
       Tacos > | 2 - 0 - 3  |   ---     |2 - 0 - 3  |
     * Pizza > | 3 - 0 - 2  |3 - 0 - 2  |   ---     |

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

[Condorcet Loser]
  Condorcet Loser: Tacos — loses every head-to-head matchup

[Score Distribution] (how many ballots gave each star rating)
                Score
Candidate  5  4  3  2  1  0  | Total   Avg
Sushi      2  0  1  0  0  2  |    13   2.6
Tacos      2  0  0  0  1  2  |    11   2.2
Pizza      1  0  4  0  0  0  |    17   3.4

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/bv2184_fyy886_lunch_vote.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 · 09_c4_b100_tennessee-capital · abstentions · bv2182_tg4779_faq_runoff_reversal · 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