Exercise 12 — Two seats, one neighborhood: Allocated Score shares¶

Generated from ex12_proportional_share.yaml — do not edit by hand. Regenerate: python STARVote_LH_tabulation_engine/tools_adam/scripts/build_yaml_pages.py.

Method: Allocated Score (proportional STAR) · 2 seats · Expected winners: Asa, Cleo

▶ Live on BetterVoting: vote · results ↗ (election 89wwvr · test BV2199).

Scenario¶

The same ten ballots as ex12_bloc_sweep.yaml, tabulated as Allocated Score (STAR-PR). Round 1 elects the highest scorer, Asa (30) — and then ALLOCATES a quota's worth (10 voters / 2 seats = 5 ballots) of Asa's strongest supporters, spending most of the north side's voting weight. Round 2 runs on what remains: the north's leftover fraction gives Bram almost nothing, while the south side's four untouched ballots give Cleo 20 — Cleo takes seat 2. Board: Asa (north) + Cleo (south), one seat per faction, matching their 60/40 weight. Same ballots as the Bloc STAR sweep, opposite philosophy: proportional methods spend a faction's weight as it wins seats so the rest of the room is heard. Exercise: ex12_bloc_vs_proportional.md. Ballots and cast are this repo's own. Live on BetterVoting (Test ID BV2199): https://bettervoting.com/89wwvr/results — BV's STAR_PR race agrees: Asa + Cleo. (Its results page banners the race "Tied!" — a systemic quirk of BV's STAR_PR serializer, which echoes the elected pair as "tied" with no round detail on every STAR_PR election, e.g. the older jwxr3j; the underlying scores here are a clean 30, then 20/16/4.)

Ballots¶

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

Asa,Bram,Cleo,Dane
5,4,0,0 # 6 north-side voters: Asa first, Bram close behind
5,4,0,0
5,4,0,0
5,4,0,0
5,4,0,0
5,4,0,0
0,0,5,4 # 4 south-side voters: Cleo first, Dane close behind
0,0,5,4
0,0,5,4
0,0,5,4

What the engine says¶

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

--- Allocated Score Voting Method (2 winners) ---

[Allocated Score Voting]
 Tabulating 10 ballots to fill 2 seats.
Count × Asa,Bram,Cleo,Dane
    6 ×   5,   4,   0,   0
    4 ×   0,   0,   5,   4

[Allocated Score Voting: Round 1]
 The highest-scoring candidate wins a seat.
   Asa           -- 30 -- First place
   Bram          -- 24
   Cleo          -- 20
   Dane          -- 16
 Asa wins a seat.

[Allocated Score Voting: Round 1: Ballot allocation round]
 Allocating 5 ballots.

[Allocated Score Voting: Round 1: Ballot allocation round: Round 1]
 Allocating 6 ballots at score 5.
 This allocation overfills the quota.  Returning fractional surplus.
 Allocating only 83.33% of these ballots.
 Keeping these ballots, but multiplying their weights by 1/6.
 6 ballots reweighted from 1 to 1/6.

[Allocated Score Voting: Round 2]
 The highest-scoring candidate wins a seat.
   Cleo          -- 20 -- First place
   Dane          -- 16
   Bram          --  4
 Cleo wins a seat.

[Allocated Score Voting: Winners — Allocated Score Voting Method (2 winners)]
 Asa
 Cleo

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

--- Preference Matrix ---
Head-to-head / pairwise comparison
Legend: For - Equal Support - Against
        Informational only — not part of the 2-winner count below,
        so no Top-2 finalists are marked.
               |     Asa    |    Bram   |    Cleo   |    Dane   |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
         Asa > |    ---     |6 - 4 - 0  |6 - 0 - 4  |6 - 0 - 4  |
        Bram > | 0 - 4 - 6  |   ---     |6 - 0 - 4  |6 - 0 - 4  |
        Cleo > | 4 - 0 - 6  |4 - 0 - 6  |   ---     |4 - 6 - 0  |
        Dane > | 4 - 0 - 6  |4 - 0 - 6  |0 - 6 - 4  |   ---     |

[Condorcet Winner]
  Condorcet Winner: Asa — matches the STAR winner

[Condorcet Loser]
  Condorcet Loser: Dane — loses every head-to-head matchup

[Score Distribution] (how many ballots gave each star rating)
                Score
Candidate  5  4  3  2  1  0  | Total   Avg
Asa        6  0  0  0  0  4  |    30   3.0
Bram       0  6  0  0  0  4  |    24   2.4
Cleo       4  0  0  0  0  6  |    20   2.0
Dane       0  4  0  0  0  6  |    16   1.6
 Hare quota is 5.

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/ex12_proportional_share.yaml

Exercise 12 — Two seats, one neighborhood: Allocated Score shares¶

Scenario¶

Ballots¶

What the engine says¶

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

See also¶