====================================================================== SOURCE FILE: ex12_proportional_share.yaml TABULATED FILE: ex12_proportional_share_tabulated.txt ====================================================================== election_title: "Exercise 12 — Two seats, one neighborhood: Allocated Score shares" bv_test_id: BV2199 bv_election_id: 89wwvr bv_results_url: https://bettervoting.com/89wwvr/results scenario_description: |- 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.) voting_method: allocated num_winners: 2 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 expected_winners: - Asa - Cleo # file: ex12_proportional_share.yaml ====================================================================== TABULATION RESULTS ====================================================================== === Exercise 12 — Two seats, one neighborhood: Allocated Score shares === 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.) --- 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 --- 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 [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. [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