election_title: "BV2268 — Committee spoiler (2 of 2): a fourth candidate wins nothing and changes who does"

scenario_description: |-
  The same seven voters and the same two seats as BV2267 (my9jd9), with a fourth
  candidate on the ballot: Dane. Every score anyone gave Ari, Bea and Cyrus is
  unchanged; the voters simply also say what they think of Dane.

    - Seat 1: scores Cyrus 17, Dane 17, Bea 16, Ari 11. Dane's arrival pushes
      Bea out of the finalist pair; Cyrus beats Dane 4-3 and takes the seat —
      the same seat-1 winner as the control.
    - Seat 2: Cyrus is removed. Dane 17, Bea 16, Ari 11, so Ari — who won this
      seat in the control election — is not even a finalist. Bea beats Dane 4-2.

  Council: Cyrus and Bea, where the same ballots without Dane elected Cyrus and
  Ari. Dane wins nothing and loses both runoffs he reaches.

  This is a failure of independence of irrelevant alternatives at the level of
  the committee, and note what it did NOT need: no Condorcet cycle (unlike the
  single-winner spoiler case) and no tie-break. Each seat rebuilds the finalist
  pair from whoever is left, so an also-ran with a competitive score can crowd
  out the candidate who would otherwise have won that seat.

  Reproduced on BetterVoting (election 6m3gxq): BV elects Cyrus then Bea,
  nTallyVotes 7, tieBreakType none — an exact match with the LH count. Frozen
  export: bv2268_6m3gxq_spoiler_changes_council_bv_export.json.
  Live results: https://bettervoting.com/6m3gxq/results

num_winners: 2
voting_method: Bloc STAR
ballots: |-
  Ari,Bea,Cyrus,Dane
  5,3,3,0
  0,3,4,2
  1,0,1,5
  0,5,2,1
  4,2,4,1
  1,0,1,5
  0,3,2,3

paradoxes: [spoiler-scc]

bv_test_id: BV2268
bv_election_id: 6m3gxq
bv_results_url: https://bettervoting.com/6m3gxq/results

expected_winners:
  - Cyrus
  - Bea

# file: bv2268_6m3gxq_spoiler_changes_council.yaml