====================================================================== SOURCE FILE: 03d_c5_b5_style-gallery-five-more.yaml TABULATED FILE: 03d_c5_b5_style-gallery-five-more_tabulated.txt ====================================================================== election_title: "Voting styles — five more ways to fill out one 5-star ballot" scenario_description: |- A companion to the eight-style gallery (03c), for the five styles that gallery doesn't show: approval-style (only 0s and 5s), the exaggerated compromise (a fear-driven 5 for the candidate you'd honestly rate mid-field), a partial ballot (score the two you've heard of, leave the rest blank), a compressed middle (everything 2s and 3s), and a null ballot (every candidate the same score). One voter per style. Three of the five say nothing in the runoff. The null ballot says nothing anywhere — delete it and the finalists, the winner and both runoff tallies are identical (Clara 21/Alice 15 becomes Clara 18/Alice 12: every total drops by the same 3, so nothing moves relative to anything else). That is "equal scores indicate no preference" taken to its limit. The exaggerated-compromise voter is the sharp one: Clara was their real favorite and they gave the front-runner Alice a 5 as insurance, so when the final came down to exactly Clara vs Alice they had no preference left to express. Meanwhile the compressed-middle voter, whose widest gap is a single point, cast a full-strength runoff vote — runoff votes count direction, not distance. Lesson: 01_STAR/01_Learn/voting_styles/README.md voting_method: STAR # STAR Voting — single-winner num_winners: 1 ballots: |- Alice,Bruno,Clara,Diego,Erin 5, 0, 5, 0, 0 # approval-style: a yes/no threshold, only 0s and 5s 5, 1, 5, 2, 0 # exaggerated compromise: Clara is the favorite, Alice a fearful 5 -, -, 5, 3, - # partial ballot: only knows Clara and Diego; blanks count as 0 2, 2, 3, 2, 3 # compressed middle: everything 2s and 3s, nothing extreme 3, 3, 3, 3, 3 # null ballot: same score for everyone — no preference anywhere expected_winners: - Clara # file: 03d_c5_b5_style-gallery-five-more.yaml ====================================================================== TABULATION RESULTS ====================================================================== === Voting styles — five more ways to fill out one 5-star ballot === A companion to the eight-style gallery (03c), for the five styles that gallery doesn't show: approval-style (only 0s and 5s), the exaggerated compromise (a fear-driven 5 for the candidate you'd honestly rate mid-field), a partial ballot (score the two you've heard of, leave the rest blank), a compressed middle (everything 2s and 3s), and a null ballot (every candidate the same score). One voter per style. Three of the five say nothing in the runoff. The null ballot says nothing anywhere — delete it and the finalists, the winner and both runoff tallies are identical (Clara 21/Alice 15 becomes Clara 18/Alice 12: every total drops by the same 3, so nothing moves relative to anything else). That is "equal scores indicate no preference" taken to its limit. The exaggerated-compromise voter is the sharp one: Clara was their real favorite and they gave the front-runner Alice a 5 as insurance, so when the final came down to exactly Clara vs Alice they had no preference left to express. Meanwhile the compressed-middle voter, whose widest gap is a single point, cast a full-strength runoff vote — runoff votes count direction, not distance. Lesson: 01_STAR/01_Learn/voting_styles/README.md --- Runoff (Preference) Matrix --- Head-to-head / pairwise comparison Legend: For - Equal Support - Against * indicates Top 2 Finalist | * Alice | Bruno | * Clara | Diego | Erin | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- * Alice > | --- |2 - 3 - 0 |0 - 3 - 2 |2 - 2 - 1 |2 - 2 - 1 | Bruno > | 0 - 3 - 2 | --- |0 - 1 - 4 |0 - 3 - 2 |1 - 3 - 1 | * Clara > | 2 - 3 - 0 |4 - 1 - 0 | --- |4 - 1 - 0 |3 - 2 - 0 | Diego > | 1 - 2 - 2 |2 - 3 - 0 |0 - 1 - 4 | --- |2 - 2 - 1 | Erin > | 1 - 2 - 2 |1 - 3 - 1 |0 - 2 - 3 |1 - 2 - 2 | --- | [Condorcet Winner] Condorcet Winner: Clara — matches the STAR winner [Condorcet Loser] No strict Condorcet loser; jointly weak Condorcet losers: Bruno, Erin (winless — pairwise ties) [Divergence from STAR] STAR = Clara Choose-One (Plurality) = Alice (differs from STAR) RCV-IRV = Alice (differs from STAR) Note: 4 of 5 ballots (80%) had equal non-zero scores, so their ranks were decided by candidate priority order. The RCV-IRV result may be an artifact of score-to-rank tie-breaking rather than a deep difference. 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/03d_c5_b5_style-gallery-five-more_RCV-IRV_tabulated.txt --- STAR Voting Method (single winner) --- [STAR Voting] Tabulating 5 ballots. Alice,Bruno,Clara,Diego,Erin 5, 0, 5, 0, 0 5, 1, 5, 2, 0 -, -, 5, 3, - 2, 2, 3, 2, 3 3, 3, 3, 3, 3 ('-' = left blank / abstained; '0' = scored zero — both count as 0 stars.) [Score Distribution] (how many ballots gave each star rating) Score Candidate 5 4 3 2 1 0 Abs | Total Avg all Avg rated Alice 2 0 1 1 0 0 1 | 15 3.0 3.8 Bruno 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 | 6 1.2 1.5 Clara 3 0 2 0 0 0 0 | 21 4.2 4.2 Diego 0 0 2 2 0 1 0 | 10 2.0 2.0 Erin 0 0 2 0 0 2 1 | 6 1.2 1.5 Avg all = Total / all ballots — a blank counts as 0, so this is the Total the Scoring Round ranks on, per ballot. Avg rated = Total / the ballots that scored this candidate (Abs excluded) — support among voters who had an opinion. [STAR Voting: Scoring Round] The two highest-scoring candidates advance to the next round. Clara -- 21 -- First place Alice -- 15 -- Second place Diego -- 10 Bruno -- 6 Erin -- 6 Clara and Alice advance. [STAR Voting: Automatic Runoff Round] The candidate preferred in the most head-to-head matchups wins. Clara -- 2 -- First place Alice -- 0 Equal Support -- 3 Clara wins. Runoff math: 5 ballots cast − 3 Equal Support (no preference between the two finalists) ─ 2 voters with a preference (majority = 2) Clara 2 (100%) · Alice 0 (0%) [STAR Voting: Winner — STAR Voting Method (single winner)] Clara