election_title: Exercise 15b — a 0–5 score profile (which method is this?)

scenario_description: |-
  Part (b) of Exercise 15 — "Read the ballot, name the method."

  Four voters rate four candidates 0-5, each candidate judged on its own scale
  with no ordering required. That is a CARDINAL ballot, and adding the columns
  is SCORE VOTING (aka Range): Clara 19, Diego 13, Bruno 11, Alice 7. Clara
  wins.

  The file runs as STAR because the teaching CLI has no first-class
  voting_method: Score — and that turns out to be the useful part. STAR's
  Scoring Round IS the score-voting tally, so the totals printed below are the
  Score result; the runoff is the extra step Score doesn't take. Here it
  changes nothing: Clara also wins the runoff 4-0, is the Condorcet winner, and
  the engine prints no [Divergence from STAR] block at all because every method
  agrees.

  Kept deliberately: an election where nothing diverges is a fair baseline for
  a library full of elections that do. Clara is scored top or joint-top by all
  four voters, so there is no question for a method to disagree about.

  A textbook-style prompt, rebuilt with named candidates so the rows line up
  A/B/C/D -> Alice/Bruno/Clara/Diego. Part (a) is ex15_approval_yes_no.yaml.

  Exercise page: ../ex15_read_the_ballot.md
  Live results: https://bettervoting.com/tfm64p/results (BV2259 — BetterVoting's
  own STAR count agrees: Clara.)

bv_test_id: BV2259
bv_election_id: tfm64p
bv_results_url: https://bettervoting.com/tfm64p/results

voting_method: STAR
num_winners: 1

ballots: |-
  Alice,Bruno,Clara,Diego
  0,2,5,4   # voter 1
  3,5,5,3   # voter 2
  0,1,5,4   # voter 3
  4,3,4,2   # voter 4

expected_winners:
  - Clara

# file: ex15_score_profile.yaml