election_title: "Tactical maximization in STAR (2 of 2) — four voters hedge to a 5, and hand the seat to the hedge"

scenario_description: |-
  Strategic ballots — half 2 of the worked expansive-sincerity pair
  (07_Concepts/topics/insincere_votes/expansive_sincerity.md).
  Identical to half 1 (tactical_max_c3_b9_honest.yaml) except that
  Alma's four core members hedge: fearing Celia, they raise Bruno from
  an honest 3 to a 5. They lower nobody — Alma keeps her 5 and her
  score total of 27, unchanged. This is EXPANSIVE sincerity (tactical
  maximization / up-voting): the order on the ballot is no longer true,
  but only upward.
  It costs them the election. Bruno's total climbs 31 -> 39; the
  finalists are still Bruno and Alma; but in the automatic runoff a
  ballot scoring both finalists 5 registers EQUAL SUPPORT. Four of nine
  voters now sit out the only comparison they cared about, and Bruno
  wins it 4-1. Alma loses to the candidate the hedgers insured against
  — while Celia, the candidate they feared, finished third on 15 points
  and was never in the runoff at all.
  The lesson is not "never give a 5". It is that in STAR a 5 you give a
  rival is spent in the SCORING round and silent in the RUNOFF: hedge
  only against a candidate who can actually reach the final two.
voting_method: STAR
num_winners: 1
ballots: |-
  Alma,Bruno,Celia
  5,5,0     # Alma's core — hedged, Bruno raised to a 5
  5,5,0     # Alma's core — hedged, Bruno raised to a 5
  5,5,0     # Alma's core — hedged, Bruno raised to a 5
  5,5,0     # Alma's core — hedged, Bruno raised to a 5
  4,2,1     # an independent, leaning Alma — unchanged
  1,5,3     # the Bruno bloc — unchanged
  1,5,3     # the Bruno bloc — unchanged
  1,5,3     # the Bruno bloc — unchanged
  0,2,5     # Celia's one loyalist — unchanged
expected_winners:
  - Bruno

# file: tactical_max_c3_b9_hedged.yaml