====================================================================== SOURCE FILE: ex10_generous.yaml TABULATED FILE: ex10_generous_tabulated.txt ====================================================================== election_title: "Exercise 10 — Later-no-harm: the generous ballots" bv_test_id: BV2196 bv_election_id: yyhj9x bv_results_url: https://bettervoting.com/yyhj9x/results scenario_description: |- The same nine voters as ex10_reticent.yaml, but Amir's four fans now score honestly: Amir 5, Bess 3, Cato 0 — they genuinely like Bess second. Those twelve extra points lift Bess from 13 to 25: scoring round Bess 25, Amir 24, Cato 15 — and Bess beats Amir in the runoff 5-4. The fans' generosity cost their favorite the win: a LATER-NO-HARM failure, live. The counter-reading: Bess is this electorate's Condorcet winner (beats Amir 5-4, Cato 6-3) and is scored 1+ by all nine voters — the reticent ballots didn't protect Amir so much as HIDE Bess. STAR gives up later-no-harm on purpose: protecting favorites by hiding compromises is exactly what it declines to reward. Exercise: ex10_later_no_harm.md. Ballots and cast are this repo's own. Live on BetterVoting (Test ID BV2196): https://bettervoting.com/yyhj9x/results — with an RCV-IRV race (still Amir: IRV keeps later-no-harm precisely by center-squeezing the Condorcet winner Bess). voting_method: STAR num_winners: 1 ballots: |- Amir,Bess,Cato 5,3,0 # 4 voters: Amir fans, honest about liking Bess second 5,3,0 5,3,0 5,3,0 2,5,0 # 2 voters: Bess first, mild nod to Amir — unchanged 2,5,0 0,1,5 # 3 voters: Cato first, a token point to Bess — unchanged 0,1,5 0,1,5 expected_winners: - Bess # file: ex10_generous.yaml ====================================================================== TABULATION RESULTS ====================================================================== === Exercise 10 — Later-no-harm: the generous ballots === The same nine voters as ex10_reticent.yaml, but Amir's four fans now score honestly: Amir 5, Bess 3, Cato 0 — they genuinely like Bess second. Those twelve extra points lift Bess from 13 to 25: scoring round Bess 25, Amir 24, Cato 15 — and Bess beats Amir in the runoff 5-4. The fans' generosity cost their favorite the win: a LATER-NO-HARM failure, live. The counter-reading: Bess is this electorate's Condorcet winner (beats Amir 5-4, Cato 6-3) and is scored 1+ by all nine voters — the reticent ballots didn't protect Amir so much as HIDE Bess. STAR gives up later-no-harm on purpose: protecting favorites by hiding compromises is exactly what it declines to reward. Exercise: ex10_later_no_harm.md. Ballots and cast are this repo's own. Live on BetterVoting (Test ID BV2196): https://bettervoting.com/yyhj9x/results — with an RCV-IRV race (still Amir: IRV keeps later-no-harm precisely by center-squeezing the Condorcet winner Bess). --- 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 | --- |6 - 0 - 3 | Cato > | 3 - 0 - 6 |3 - 0 - 6 | --- | [Condorcet Winner] Condorcet Winner: Bess — matches the STAR winner [Condorcet Loser] Condorcet Loser: Cato — loses every head-to-head matchup [Divergence from STAR] STAR = Bess Choose-One (Plurality) = Amir (differs from STAR) RCV-IRV = Amir (differs from STAR) Note: no ballots had tied scores, so RCV-IRV vs STAR here is a genuine method difference, not a tie-breaking artifact. Note: Ranked Robin (RCV-RR) agrees with STAR, so RCV-IRV is the lone outlier — the classic center-squeeze signature. Full round-by-round reports (generated for review): RCV-IRV rounds: cases_tabulated/ex10_generous_RCV-IRV_tabulated.txt --- STAR Voting Method (single winner) --- [STAR Voting] Tabulating 9 ballots. Count × Amir,Bess,Cato 4 × 5, 3, 0 3 × 0, 1, 5 2 × 2, 5, 0 [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 4 0 3 0 | 25 2.8 Cato 3 0 0 0 0 6 | 15 1.7 [STAR Voting: Scoring Round] The two highest-scoring candidates advance to the next round. Bess -- 25 -- First place Amir -- 24 -- Second place Cato -- 15 Bess and Amir advance. [STAR Voting: Automatic Runoff Round] The candidate preferred in the most head-to-head matchups wins. Bess -- 5 -- First place Amir -- 4 Equal Support -- 0 Bess wins. Runoff math: 9 ballots cast − 0 Equal Support (no preference between the two finalists) ─ 9 voters with a preference (majority = 5) Bess 5 (56%) · Amir 4 (44%) [STAR Voting: Winner — STAR Voting Method (single winner)] Bess