====================================================================== SOURCE FILE: bv2256_c8h3tb_traditional_style.yaml TABULATED FILE: bv2256_c8h3tb_traditional_style_tabulated.txt ====================================================================== bv_test_id: BV2256 bv_election_id: c8h3tb bv_results_url: https://bettervoting.com/c8h3tb/results election_title: "Traditional voting style — one mark each (BV2256, c8h3tb)" scenario_description: |- The "traditional" voting style, done to the hilt. Three voters, five candidates, and every voter fills out the 5-star ballot the old familiar way: one 5 for a favorite, the other four rows blank (a blank counts as 0). One marks Carmen, two mark Ella. Said plainly: as an approach and as a strategy this is a POOR use of a STAR ballot — unless one candidate really is your only acceptable choice, period, in which case it is exactly honest and you should vote it. Otherwise you spend 5 of the 25 points the ballot offers, say nothing about the rest of the field, and if your one pick misses the runoff your ballot has no voice in the final head-to-head. Nothing is penalized: a bullet vote is legal, full-weight and impossible to spoil, and a backup score can never hurt your favorite. You are simply choosing not to use the ballot. Watch what it costs the count. STAR's scoring round becomes nothing but a first-choice tally — Ella 10, Carmen 5, and Andre, Blake and David on 0 with nothing ever said about them — and the automatic runoff has nothing left to add (Ella 2 - Carmen 1, nobody at Equal Support). A ballot carrying one bit per voter gives the method one bit to read, so this count could not have done better than the choose-one ballot it is imitating. Live results (BV2256): https://bettervoting.com/c8h3tb/results Lesson: 01_STAR/01_Learn/voting_styles/traditional.md voting_method: STAR num_winners: 1 ballots: |- Andre,Blake,Carmen,David,Ella 0, 0, 5, 0, 0 # traditional: "Carmen. Period." 0, 0, 0, 0, 5 # traditional: "Ella. Period." 0, 0, 0, 0, 5 # traditional: "Ella. Period." expected_winners: - Ella # file: bv2256_c8h3tb_traditional_style.yaml ====================================================================== TABULATION RESULTS ====================================================================== === Traditional voting style — one mark each (BV2256, c8h3tb) === The "traditional" voting style, done to the hilt. Three voters, five candidates, and every voter fills out the 5-star ballot the old familiar way: one 5 for a favorite, the other four rows blank (a blank counts as 0). One marks Carmen, two mark Ella. Said plainly: as an approach and as a strategy this is a POOR use of a STAR ballot — unless one candidate really is your only acceptable choice, period, in which case it is exactly honest and you should vote it. Otherwise you spend 5 of the 25 points the ballot offers, say nothing about the rest of the field, and if your one pick misses the runoff your ballot has no voice in the final head-to-head. Nothing is penalized: a bullet vote is legal, full-weight and impossible to spoil, and a backup score can never hurt your favorite. You are simply choosing not to use the ballot. Watch what it costs the count. STAR's scoring round becomes nothing but a first-choice tally — Ella 10, Carmen 5, and Andre, Blake and David on 0 with nothing ever said about them — and the automatic runoff has nothing left to add (Ella 2 - Carmen 1, nobody at Equal Support). A ballot carrying one bit per voter gives the method one bit to read, so this count could not have done better than the choose-one ballot it is imitating. Live results (BV2256): https://bettervoting.com/c8h3tb/results Lesson: 01_STAR/01_Learn/voting_styles/traditional.md --- Runoff (Preference) Matrix --- Head-to-head / pairwise comparison Legend: For - Equal Support - Against * indicates Top 2 Finalist | Andre | Blake | * Carmen | David | * Ella | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Andre > | --- |0 - 3 - 0 |0 - 2 - 1 |0 - 3 - 0 |0 - 1 - 2 | Blake > | 0 - 3 - 0 | --- |0 - 2 - 1 |0 - 3 - 0 |0 - 1 - 2 | * Carmen > | 1 - 2 - 0 |1 - 2 - 0 | --- |1 - 2 - 0 |1 - 0 - 2 | David > | 0 - 3 - 0 |0 - 3 - 0 |0 - 2 - 1 | --- |0 - 1 - 2 | * Ella > | 2 - 1 - 0 |2 - 1 - 0 |2 - 0 - 1 |2 - 1 - 0 | --- | [Condorcet Winner] Condorcet Winner: Ella — matches the STAR winner [Condorcet Loser] No strict Condorcet loser; jointly weak Condorcet losers: Andre, Blake, David (winless — pairwise ties) --- STAR Voting Method (single winner) --- [STAR Voting] Tabulating 3 ballots. Count × Andre,Blake,Carmen,David,Ella 2 × 0, 0, 0, 0, 5 1 × 0, 0, 5, 0, 0 [Score Distribution] (how many ballots gave each star rating) Score Candidate 5 4 3 2 1 0 | Total Avg Andre 0 0 0 0 0 3 | 0 0.0 Blake 0 0 0 0 0 3 | 0 0.0 Carmen 1 0 0 0 0 2 | 5 1.7 David 0 0 0 0 0 3 | 0 0.0 Ella 2 0 0 0 0 1 | 10 3.3 [STAR Voting: Scoring Round] The two highest-scoring candidates advance to the next round. Ella -- 10 -- First place Carmen -- 5 -- Second place Andre -- 0 Blake -- 0 David -- 0 Ella and Carmen advance. [STAR Voting: Automatic Runoff Round] The candidate preferred in the most head-to-head matchups wins. Ella -- 2 -- First place Carmen -- 1 Equal Support -- 0 Ella wins. Runoff math: 3 ballots cast − 0 Equal Support (no preference between the two finalists) ─ 3 voters with a preference (majority = 2) Ella 2 (67%) · Carmen 1 (33%) [STAR Voting: Winner — STAR Voting Method (single winner)] Ella