Exercise 10 — Later-no-harm: the reticent ballots¶

Generated from ex10_reticent.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: Amir

▶ Live on BetterVoting: vote · results ↗ (election g6q42v · test BV2195).

Scenario¶

Nine voters, three candidates. Amir's four fans withhold everything below their favorite: Amir 5, Bess 0, Cato 0. Scoring round: Amir 24, Cato 15, Bess 13 — Amir and Cato advance, and Amir wins the runoff 6-3. The companion file ex10_generous.yaml reruns the election with those fans scoring honestly (Amir 5, Bess 3, Cato 0): Bess reaches the runoff instead and beats Amir 5-4. Scoring a later choice DID harm their favorite — the later-no-harm failure STAR accepts by design. The exercise asks which reading is right: did the generous 3s harm Amir, or did the reticent 0s hide the consensus winner Bess? Exercise: ex10_later_no_harm.md. Ballots and cast are this repo's own. Live on BetterVoting (Test ID BV2195): https://bettervoting.com/g6q42v/results — with an RCV-IRV race (also Amir). No Ranked Robin race on purpose: the rank conversion of these sparse ballots yields a Condorcet cycle whose 3-way tie BV resolves at random — not freezable.

Ballots¶

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

Amir,Bess,Cato
5,0,0 # 4 voters: Amir fans, scoring NOTHING below their favorite
5,0,0
5,0,0
5,0,0
2,5,0 # 2 voters: Bess first, mild nod to Amir
2,5,0
0,1,5 # 3 voters: Cato first, a token point to Bess
0,1,5
0,1,5

What the engine says¶

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

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

[STAR Voting]
 Tabulating 9 ballots.
Count × Amir,Bess,Cato
    4 ×    5,   0,   0
    3 ×    0,   1,   5
    2 ×    2,   5,   0

[STAR Voting: Scoring Round]
 The two highest-scoring candidates advance to the next round.
   Amir          -- 24 -- First place
   Cato          -- 15 -- Second place
   Bess          -- 13
 Amir and Cato advance.

[STAR Voting: Automatic Runoff Round]
 The candidate preferred in the most head-to-head matchups wins.
   Amir          -- 6 -- First place
   Cato          -- 3
   Equal Support -- 0
 Amir wins.
   Runoff math:
     9  ballots cast
   − 0  Equal Support (no preference between the two finalists)
     ─
     9  voters with a preference  (majority = 5)
           Amir 6 (67%)  ·  Cato 3 (33%)

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

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
               |   * Amir   |    Bess   |  * Cato   |
-----------------------------------------------------
      * Amir > |    ---     |4 - 0 - 5  |6 - 0 - 3  |
        Bess > | 5 - 0 - 4  |   ---     |2 - 4 - 3  |
      * Cato > | 3 - 0 - 6  |3 - 4 - 2  |   ---     |

[Condorcet Winner]
  No Condorcet winner (majority cycle: Amir > Cato > Bess > Amir)

[Score Distribution] (how many ballots gave each star rating)
                Score
Candidate  5  4  3  2  1  0  | Total   Avg
Amir       4  0  0  2  0  3  |    24   2.7
Bess       2  0  0  0  3  4  |    13   1.4
Cato       3  0  0  0  0  6  |    15   1.7

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/05_Practice/cases/ex10_reticent.yaml

Exercise 10 — Later-no-harm: the reticent ballots¶

Scenario¶

Ballots¶

What the engine says¶

Full audit — preference matrix, Condorcet, and score distribution¶

See also¶