====================================================================== SOURCE FILE: bv131_guido_bloc.yaml TABULATED FILE: bv131_guido_bloc_tabulated.txt ====================================================================== election_title: "BV131 — Guido example (Bloc STAR): seat 1 is a hidden lot-decided tie" scenario_description: |- The LH reference for BetterVoting test BV131 ("Guido example", real election kbh3d9). The sheet marks it Passed, but seat 1 is actually a PERFECT lot-decided tie — the Bloc analog of jfk7pd. Bloc STAR, 3 candidates, 2 seats. Totals: Cand1=6, Cand2=6, Cand3=5. - Seat 1: Cand1 and Cand2 tie at 6 and advance. In the runoff they tie 1-1; score is 6-6; five-star is 1-1 each. Every deterministic rung ties, so the LOT decides. BetterVoting drew Cand2 at random (its round-0 logs: runoff_tied -> runoff_score_tie -> runoff_five_star_tie -> runoff_random -> Cand2). This file pins the lot order [Cand2, Cand1, Cand3] to REPRODUCE BV's Cand2. - Seat 2: remove Cand2 -> Cand1 (6) and Cand3 (5) advance; Cand3 wins the runoff 2-1. Winners: Cand2, Cand3 (reproducing BV). Two findings worth flagging: 1. Non-reproducible, like jfk7pd: with the column-order fallback (no lot order) LH would elect Cand1 for seat 1, not Cand2 — same ballots, different winner, decided only by the tie-break order (cf. #1063). 2. Reporting mislabel: BV's top-level `tieBreakType` is "none", even though its own round-0 `tieBreakType` is "random". A reader of the summary can't tell that seat 1 was a coin toss. num_winners: 2 voting_method: Bloc STAR lot_numbers: [Cand2, Cand1, Cand3] # BV's drawn order (perm) — reproduces Cand2 ballots: |- Cand1,Cand2,Cand3 1,5,2 0,0,1 5,1,2 expected_winners: - Cand2 - Cand3 # file: bv131_guido_bloc.yaml ====================================================================== TABULATION RESULTS ====================================================================== === BV131 — Guido example (Bloc STAR): seat 1 is a hidden lot-decided tie === The LH reference for BetterVoting test BV131 ("Guido example", real election kbh3d9). The sheet marks it Passed, but seat 1 is actually a PERFECT lot-decided tie — the Bloc analog of jfk7pd. Bloc STAR, 3 candidates, 2 seats. Totals: Cand1=6, Cand2=6, Cand3=5. - Seat 1: Cand1 and Cand2 tie at 6 and advance. In the runoff they tie 1-1; score is 6-6; five-star is 1-1 each. Every deterministic rung ties, so the LOT decides. BetterVoting drew Cand2 at random (its round-0 logs: runoff_tied -> runoff_score_tie -> runoff_five_star_tie -> runoff_random -> Cand2). This file pins the lot order [Cand2, Cand1, Cand3] to REPRODUCE BV's Cand2. - Seat 2: remove Cand2 -> Cand1 (6) and Cand3 (5) advance; Cand3 wins the runoff 2-1. Winners: Cand2, Cand3 (reproducing BV). Two findings worth flagging: 1. Non-reproducible, like jfk7pd: with the column-order fallback (no lot order) LH would elect Cand1 for seat 1, not Cand2 — same ballots, different winner, decided only by the tie-break order (cf. #1063). 2. Reporting mislabel: BV's top-level `tieBreakType` is "none", even though its own round-0 `tieBreakType` is "random". A reader of the summary can't tell that seat 1 was a coin toss. --- 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. | Cand1 | Cand2 | Cand3 | ----------------------------------------------------- Cand1 > | --- |1 - 1 - 1 |1 - 0 - 2 | Cand2 > | 1 - 1 - 1 | --- |1 - 0 - 2 | Cand3 > | 2 - 0 - 1 |2 - 0 - 1 | --- | [Condorcet Winner] Condorcet Winner: Cand3 — STAR elected Cand2 instead (Cand3 was eliminated in the scoring round) [Condorcet Loser] No strict Condorcet loser; jointly weak Condorcet losers: Cand1, Cand2 (winless — pairwise ties) — Cand2 elected by STAR, Choose-One (Plurality), Approval! [Divergence from STAR] STAR = Cand2 RCV-IRV = Cand3 (differs from STAR) RCV-RR (Condorcet) = Cand3 (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) sides with RCV-IRV, so STAR is the outlier here — STAR need not elect the Condorcet candidate. Full round-by-round reports (generated for review): RCV-IRV rounds: cases_tabulated/bv131_guido_bloc_RCV-IRV_tabulated.txt RCV-RR round-robin: cases_tabulated/bv131_guido_bloc_RCV-RR_tabulated.txt --- Bloc STAR Voting Method (2 winners) --- [Bloc STAR] Tabulating 3 ballots to fill 2 seats. Cand1,Cand2,Cand3 1, 5, 2 0, 0, 1 5, 1, 2 [Score Distribution] (how many ballots gave each star rating) Score Candidate 5 4 3 2 1 0 | Total Avg Cand1 1 0 0 0 1 1 | 6 2.0 Cand2 1 0 0 0 1 1 | 6 2.0 Cand3 0 0 0 2 1 0 | 5 1.7 [Bloc STAR: Round 1: Scoring Round] The two highest-scoring candidates advance to the next round. Cand1 -- 6 -- First place Cand2 -- 6 -- Second place Cand3 -- 5 Cand1 and Cand2 advance. [Bloc STAR: Round 1: Automatic Runoff Round] The candidate preferred in the most head-to-head matchups wins. Cand1 -- 1 -- Tied for first place Cand2 -- 1 -- Tied for first place Equal Support -- 1 There's a two-way tie for first. [Bloc STAR: Round 1: Automatic Runoff Round: First tiebreaker] The highest-scoring candidate wins. Cand1 -- 6 -- Tied for first place Cand2 -- 6 -- Tied for first place There's still a two-way tie for first. [Bloc STAR: Round 1: Automatic Runoff Round: Second tiebreaker] The candidate with the most votes of score 5 wins. Cand1 -- 1 -- Tied for first place Cand2 -- 1 -- Tied for first place There's still a two-way tie for first. *(Ties are resolved by choosing the tied candidate with the highest-priority official lot number.)* Lot-number priority order: ['Cand2', 'Cand1', 'Cand3'] [Tiebreaker: Lot Number Priority] Tie among: ['Cand1', 'Cand2'] Resolved: ['Cand2'] (selected by lot-number priority). [Lot-decided tie — rare] ⚠ The ballots did not break this tie: the deterministic rungs (pairwise / score, then five-star) all came back equal, so the pre-published LOT order chose among the tied candidates — the result here was set by lot, not by the votes. Usually the "dead rung": no tied candidate held a score-5 vote (five-star counts fives, not fours). Verify the tied candidates' 5-counts. ────────────────────────────────────────────────── [Bloc STAR: Round 2: Scoring Round] The two highest-scoring candidates advance to the next round. Cand1 -- 6 -- First place Cand3 -- 5 -- Second place Cand1 and Cand3 advance. [Bloc STAR: Round 2: Automatic Runoff Round] The candidate preferred in the most head-to-head matchups wins. Cand3 -- 2 -- First place Cand1 -- 1 Equal Support -- 0 Cand3 wins. Runoff math: 3 ballots cast − 0 Equal Support (no preference between the two finalists) ─ 3 voters with a preference (majority = 2) Cand3 2 (67%) · Cand1 1 (33%) [Bloc STAR: Winners — Bloc STAR Voting Method (2 winners)] Cand2 Cand3