Noise Soup — weak factions, cross-winds, flat-liners and static¶
Generated from 04_c4_b47_noise-soup.yaml — do not edit by hand. Regenerate: python STARVote_LH_tabulation_engine/tools_adam/scripts/build_yaml_pages.py.
Method: STAR (single winner) · 1 seat · Expected winner: Caleb
▶ Live on BetterVoting: vote · results ↗ (election 74pbyg · test BV2237).
Scenario¶
The messy-reality fixture: two loose leans instead of crisp camps, a crosswind bloc, pure-noise voters, flat-line no-preference ballots, one race abstention (~), one spoiled ballot (?), and stray blank cells. No clean story planted - whatever structure the count finds, it found in the noise. Watch the full pairwise matrix: weak, noisy electorates are exactly where Condorcet's neat ordering starts to wobble.
The electorate (47 ballots, all individual rows): - leans A-B: 10 voters (4 strong_backup, 3 nuanced, 3 ranked_style) - leans C-D: 13 voters (6 nuanced, 4 slate, 3 weak_backup) - crosswind: 11 voters (5 cliff35, 3 nuanced, 2 anyone_but, 1 protest) - static: 11 voters (6 ranked_style, 3 chaos, 2 flat) - plus 2 marker row(s): 1 spoiled ballot, 1 race abstention
Ballot styles in play (taxonomy: 01_STAR/01_Learn/voting_styles/README.md): - slate: partisan slate: equal 5s for the in-group, 0 outside - flat: flat-liner: same score for everyone - anyone_but: 5 for everyone except the villain (0) - chaos: pure noise (fuzzing voter) - nuanced: full 0-5 range, honest gaps, ties allowed - cliff35: cliff ballot: 0 or 3-5, nothing in between - ranked_style: uses each score once, like a ranking - weak_backup: 5 + a grudging 1 backup, rest 0/blank - strong_backup: 5 + a strong 4 backup, rest 0/blank - protest: all zeros plus a lone least-bad 1
What the frozen seed produced: Scoring Round Beth 120, Caleb 113, Dana 112, Aaron 109. Runoff Caleb 18 vs Beth 16 (Equal Support 13). STAR winner: Caleb. No Condorcet winner - the pairwise order wobbles (see the full matrix). Choose-One (Plurality) would elect Aaron. RCV-IRV would elect Beth. Approval would elect Beth. RCV-RR would elect Beth.
RANDOM-BUT-HUMAN, reproducible: generated by 06_Other/ballot_style_lab/generate_ballot_styles.py (scenario 'noise_soup', seed 217) - utilities sampled from the faction model above, then rendered through each voter's ballot style. Per 07_Concepts/topics/simulate_utilities_not_ballots.md this is the 'stress-test the tabulator' job (with human-shaped renderings), not a method-welfare comparison. Regenerate byte-identically: python generate_ballot_styles.py --emit noise_soup
Ballots¶
Row 1 = candidate names; each later row is one voter's 0–5 scores (a N × prefix = N identical ballots).
Markers on these ballots: - blank · ~ race abstention · & candidate abstention · ? spoiled · % spoiled+reissued — all tabulate as 0 (reported honestly).
Aaron, Beth, Caleb, Dana
5, 5, 5, 5
3, 3, 3, 3
5, 5, 0, 5
0, 4, 4, 3
2, 5, 3, 4
5, 0, 3, 1
5, 0, 0, 0
4, 5, 2, 3
0, 0, 1, 5
0, 2, 5, 2
2, 5, 3, 4
4, 5, -, -
4, 0, 0, 5
1, 5, 0, 2
5, 5, 0, 5
0, 0, 5, 0
0, 0, 5, 0
?, ?, ?, ?
5, 3, 4, 2
2, 4, 5, 3
~, ~, ~, ~
5, 0, 0, 0
0, 0, 0, 0
1, 5, 0, 2
0, 2, 5, 2
1, -, -, 5
3, 4, 5, 2
0, 5, 0, 5
5, 4, 2, 3
3, 0, 5, 4
-, -, 1, 5
5, 2, 2, 0
2, 5, 0, 0
-, 5, 5, 5
0, 0, 5, 3
4, 5, 0, 0
5, 4, 2, 0
5, 3, 5, 0
0, 3, 4, 5
5, 0, 5, 0
5, 3, 2, 4
4, 2, 3, 5
0, 0, 4, 5
-, 5, 4, -
0, 0, 1, 0
4, 5, 3, 2
0, 2, 2, 3
What the engine says¶
The count, step by step — the rounds and how the winner is reached:
[Divergence from STAR]
STAR = Caleb
Choose-One (Plurality) = Aaron (differs from STAR)
RCV-IRV = Beth (differs from STAR)
Approval = Beth (differs from STAR)
RCV-RR = Beth (differs from STAR)
Note: 13 of 47 ballots (28%) had equal non-zero scores, so their ranks
were decided by candidate priority order. The RCV-IRV result may be
an artifact of score-to-rank tie-breaking rather than a deep
difference.
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/04_c4_b47_noise-soup_RCV-IRV_tabulated.txt
RCV-RR round-robin: cases_tabulated/04_c4_b47_noise-soup_RCV-RR_tabulated.txt
[Runoff Reversal]
- Score Round Winner(s) = (Beth)
- Runoff Round Winner = (Caleb)
Candidate Beth earned the highest total score, but
Candidate Caleb won the automatic runoff — not a malfunction,
STAR working as designed: the runoff elects the finalist preferred
by the majority (of voters with a preference).
--- STAR Voting Method (single winner) ---
[STAR Voting]
Tabulating 47 ballots. Note: 2 of 47 ballots are marked as abstentions.
Count × Aaron,Beth,Caleb,Dana
2 × 5, 5, 0, 5
2 × 2, 5, 3, 4
2 × 5, 0, 0, 0
2 × 0, 2, 5, 2
2 × 1, 5, 0, 2
2 × 0, 0, 5, 0
1 × 5, 5, 5, 5
1 × 3, 3, 3, 3
1 × 0, 4, 4, 3
1 × 5, 0, 3, 1
1 × 4, 5, 2, 3
1 × 0, 0, 1, 5
1 × 4, 5, -, -
1 × 4, 0, 0, 5
1 × ?, ?, ?, ?
1 × 5, 3, 4, 2
1 × 2, 4, 5, 3
1 × ~, ~, ~, ~
1 × 0, 0, 0, 0
1 × 1, -, -, 5
1 × 3, 4, 5, 2
1 × 0, 5, 0, 5
1 × 5, 4, 2, 3
1 × 3, 0, 5, 4
1 × -, -, 1, 5
1 × 5, 2, 2, 0
1 × 2, 5, 0, 0
1 × -, 5, 5, 5
1 × 0, 0, 5, 3
1 × 4, 5, 0, 0
1 × 5, 4, 2, 0
1 × 5, 3, 5, 0
1 × 0, 3, 4, 5
1 × 5, 0, 5, 0
1 × 5, 3, 2, 4
1 × 4, 2, 3, 5
1 × 0, 0, 4, 5
1 × -, 5, 4, -
1 × 0, 0, 1, 0
1 × 4, 5, 3, 2
1 × 0, 2, 2, 3
('-' = left blank / abstained; '0' = scored zero — both count as 0 stars.)
[STAR Voting: Scoring Round]
The two highest-scoring candidates advance to the next round.
Beth -- 120 -- First place
Caleb -- 113 -- Second place
Dana -- 112
Aaron -- 109
Beth and Caleb advance.
[STAR Voting: Automatic Runoff Round]
The candidate preferred in the most head-to-head matchups wins.
Caleb -- 18 -- First place
Beth -- 16
Equal Support -- 13
Caleb wins.
Runoff math:
47 ballots cast
− 13 Equal Support (no preference between the two finalists)
──
34 voters with a preference (majority = 18)
Caleb 18 (53%) · Beth 16 (47%)
[STAR Voting: Winner — STAR Voting Method (single winner)]
Caleb
Full audit — preference matrix, Condorcet, and score distribution¶
--- Runoff (Preference) Matrix ---
Head-to-head / pairwise comparison
Legend: For - Equal Support - Against
* indicates Top 2 Finalist
| Aaron | * Beth | * Caleb | Dana |
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Aaron > | --- |14 - 14 - 19 |20 - 8 - 19 |16 - 11 - 20 |
* Beth > | 19 - 14 - 14 | --- |16 - 13 - 18 |18 - 17 - 12 |
* Caleb > | 19 - 8 - 20 |18 - 13 - 16 | --- |18 - 11 - 18 |
Dana > | 20 - 11 - 16 |12 - 17 - 18 |18 - 11 - 18 | --- |
[Condorcet Winner]
No Condorcet winner (majority cycle: Aaron > Caleb > Beth > Aaron)
[Score Distribution] (how many ballots gave each star rating)
Score
Candidate 5 4 3 2 1 0 Abs | Total Avg all Avg rated
Aaron 13 6 3 4 3 13 5 | 109 2.3 2.6
Beth 15 5 5 5 0 13 4 | 120 2.6 2.8
Caleb 12 5 6 6 3 11 4 | 113 2.4 2.6
Dana 12 4 7 7 1 12 4 | 112 2.4 2.6
Avg all = Total / all ballots — a blank counts as 0, so this is the Total the Scoring Round ranks on, per ballot.
Avg rated = Total / the ballots that scored this candidate (Abs excluded) — support among voters who had an opinion.
Everything in one file: the _tabulated mirror (regenerated on every run; every analysis forced on).
Run it yourself:
python STARVote_LH_tabulation_engine/starvote_larry_hastings.py 06_Other/ballot_style_lab/cases/04_c4_b47_noise-soup.yaml
See also¶
- Methods disagree on this election — its entry in the divergence review ledger
- Condorcet efficiency (topic hub)
- Ties & tie-breaking (topic hub)
- Runoff reversal (worked set)
- Ballot & terminology basics
- Glossary · all cases by method
More cases in this set: 01_c3_b31_graders-divide · 02_c4_b40_cliff-city · 03_c4_b33_bullet-storm · 05_c3_b38_squeeze-survives · 06_c4_b24_narrow-bands · 07a_c5_b36_herb-council-bloc-3-seats · 07b_c5_b36_herb-council-pr-3-seats · 08_c6_b29_quota-circus-pr-2-seats · 09_c7_b44_park-bloc-4-seats