election_title: "Tactical maximization in STAR (1 of 2) — honest ballots: the hedgers' preference decides the runoff"

scenario_description: |-
  Honest ballots — half 1 of the worked expansive-sincerity pair
  (07_Concepts/topics/insincere_votes/expansive_sincerity.md). A
  neighborhood association of nine elects a chair: Alma, Bruno, Celia.
  Four members are Alma's core: they honestly like Bruno too (3) and
  want nothing to do with Celia (0). One independent leans Alma (4,2,1).
  Three back Bruno (1,5,3), and one backs Celia (0,2,5).
  Bruno leads the scoring round on points (31 to Alma's 27; Celia is a
  distant 15 and never a threat), so the finalists are Bruno and Alma —
  and the runoff reads only ORDER, where all five Alma-leaning ballots
  put Alma above Bruno. Alma wins 5-4, with nobody sitting out: 9 of 9
  voters had a preference. That last line is the whole point of the
  pair: the four hedgers' Alma > Bruno preference IS Alma's margin.
  Half 2 (tactical_max_c3_b9_hedged.yaml) has those four raise Bruno
  3 -> 5 as insurance against Celia, and lose the election because of it.
voting_method: STAR
num_winners: 1
ballots: |-
  Alma,Bruno,Celia
  5,3,0     # Alma's core — Bruno is fine, Celia is not
  5,3,0     # Alma's core — Bruno is fine, Celia is not
  5,3,0     # Alma's core — Bruno is fine, Celia is not
  5,3,0     # Alma's core — Bruno is fine, Celia is not
  4,2,1     # an independent, leaning Alma
  1,5,3     # the Bruno bloc
  1,5,3     # the Bruno bloc
  1,5,3     # the Bruno bloc
  0,2,5     # Celia's one loyalist
expected_winners:
  - Alma

# file: tactical_max_c3_b9_honest.yaml