====================================================================== SOURCE FILE: 09_c7_b44_park-bloc-4-seats.yaml TABULATED FILE: 09_c7_b44_park-bloc-4-seats_tabulated.txt ====================================================================== election_title: Replant the Park — Bloc STAR with 7 trees, 4 seats, and wildcards bv_test_id: BV2247 bv_election_id: v9rhhr bv_results_url: https://bettervoting.com/v9rhhr/results scenario_description: |- The big-field crazy one: seven trees, FOUR seats, forty-four ballots. An evergreen duo and a shade trio campaign as slates while a quarter of the town votes wildcard - noise, anyone-but, protest ballots, flat lines. Bloc STAR runs the full STAR count once per seat (scoring round + automatic runoff, four times over), so every seat gets its own two-round story - and with only five slated candidates for four seats, at least one seat is always within a dark horse's reach. The electorate (44 ballots, all individual rows): - evergreen slate: 16 voters (5 bullet, 4 strong_backup, 4 nuanced, 3 slate) - shade slate: 19 voters (7 cliff35, 7 ranked_style, 5 nuanced) - wildcards: 9 voters (4 chaos, 4 anyone_but, 1 ranked_style) Ballot styles in play (taxonomy: 01_STAR/01_Learn/voting_styles/README.md): - cliff35: cliff ballot: 0 or 3-5, nothing in between - bullet: choose-one transplant: favorite 5, rest 0/blank - strong_backup: 5 + a strong 4 backup, rest 0/blank - slate: partisan slate: equal 5s for the in-group, 0 outside - chaos: pure noise (fuzzing voter) - nuanced: full 0-5 range, honest gaps, ties allowed - ranked_style: uses each score once, like a ranking - anyone_but: 5 for everyone except the villain (0) What the frozen seed produced: Seats: Dogwood, Aspen, Elm, Cedar. evergreen slate seats 1 of its 2-name slate; shade slate seats 3 of its 3-name slate. Per-seat runoff margins: 4, 7, 4, 0. The final seat's runoff is TIED - resolved by STAR's official tiebreaker ladder. RANDOM-BUT-HUMAN, reproducible: generated by 06_Other/ballot_style_lab/generate_ballot_styles.py (scenario 'park_bloc', seed 7) - 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 park_bloc voting_method: Bloc STAR num_winners: 4 ballots: |- Aspen, Birch, Cedar, Dogwood, Elm, Fir, Ginkgo 4, 4, 3, 5, 4, 3, 0 0, 0, 5, 0, 0, 0, 0 -, -, 4, -, -, 5, - -, -, 5, -, -, 5, - 5, 0, 0, 4, 5, 0, 0 4, 5, 0, 4, 0, 2, 5 0, 1, 5, 2, 0, 5, 1 4, 0, 0, 5, 3, 1, 2 5, 5, 5, 5, 0, 5, 5 3, 0, 1, 5, 4, 2, 0 -, -, 5, -, -, -, - 5, 0, 0, 3, 4, 2, 1 5, 0, 0, 5, 4, 0, 0 0, 0, 5, 0, 0, 0, 0 1, 0, 4, 5, 1, 0, 1 4, 1, 0, 3, 5, 1, 0 3, 2, 1, 4, 5, 0, 0 -, -, 5, -, -, 4, - 3, 1, 0, 4, 5, 2, 0 0, 0, 5, 0, 0, 5, 0 4, 2, 0, 5, 4, 2, 5 -, -, 5, -, -, 5, - 4, 2, 1, 5, 3, 0, 0 2, 0, 1, 5, 3, 1, 2 5, 1, 1, 5, 5, 2, 0 0, 1, 5, 0, 0, 4, 2 5, 0, 0, 5, 5, 0, 0 4, 0, 2, 0, 3, 1, 5 -, -, -, -, -, 5, - 5, 0, 0, 5, 5, 0, 0 1, 1, 5, 0, 0, 4, 0 5, 0, 0, 5, 5, 0, 0 1, 1, 0, 4, 0, 1, 5 -, -, 5, -, -, 4, - 5, 5, 5, 0, 5, 5, 5 5, 1, 2, 5, 3, 0, 1 5, 1, 2, 3, 4, 0, 0 5, 0, 0, 5, 5, 0, 0 5, 5, 5, 5, 5, 5, 0 0, 0, 5, 0, 0, 0, 0 -, -, 4, -, -, 5, - 5, 2, 0, 1, 5, 5, 5 5, 0, 5, 5, 5, 5, 5 0, 2, 4, 1, 1, 5, 2 expected_winners: - Dogwood - Aspen - Elm - Cedar # file: 09_c7_b44_park-bloc-4-seats.yaml ====================================================================== TABULATION RESULTS ====================================================================== === Replant the Park — Bloc STAR with 7 trees, 4 seats, and wildcards === The big-field crazy one: seven trees, FOUR seats, forty-four ballots. An evergreen duo and a shade trio campaign as slates while a quarter of the town votes wildcard - noise, anyone-but, protest ballots, flat lines. Bloc STAR runs the full STAR count once per seat (scoring round + automatic runoff, four times over), so every seat gets its own two-round story - and with only five slated candidates for four seats, at least one seat is always within a dark horse's reach. The electorate (44 ballots, all individual rows): - evergreen slate: 16 voters (5 bullet, 4 strong_backup, 4 nuanced, 3 slate) - shade slate: 19 voters (7 cliff35, 7 ranked_style, 5 nuanced) - wildcards: 9 voters (4 chaos, 4 anyone_but, 1 ranked_style) Ballot styles in play (taxonomy: 01_STAR/01_Learn/voting_styles/README.md): - cliff35: cliff ballot: 0 or 3-5, nothing in between - bullet: choose-one transplant: favorite 5, rest 0/blank - strong_backup: 5 + a strong 4 backup, rest 0/blank - slate: partisan slate: equal 5s for the in-group, 0 outside - chaos: pure noise (fuzzing voter) - nuanced: full 0-5 range, honest gaps, ties allowed - ranked_style: uses each score once, like a ranking - anyone_but: 5 for everyone except the villain (0) What the frozen seed produced: Seats: Dogwood, Aspen, Elm, Cedar. evergreen slate seats 1 of its 2-name slate; shade slate seats 3 of its 3-name slate. Per-seat runoff margins: 4, 7, 4, 0. The final seat's runoff is TIED - resolved by STAR's official tiebreaker ladder. RANDOM-BUT-HUMAN, reproducible: generated by 06_Other/ballot_style_lab/generate_ballot_styles.py (scenario 'park_bloc', seed 7) - 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 park_bloc --- Preference Matrix --- Head-to-head / pairwise comparison Legend: For - Equal Support - Against Informational only — not part of the 4-winner count below, so no Top-2 finalists are marked. | Aspen | Birch | Cedar | Dogwood | Elm | Fir | Ginkgo | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Aspen > | --- |22 - 18 - 4 |23 - 5 - 16 | 8 - 24 - 12 |11 - 27 - 6 |22 - 10 - 12 |19 - 18 - 7 | Birch > | 4 - 18 - 22 | --- | 9 - 13 - 22 | 6 - 15 - 23 | 7 - 15 - 22 | 6 - 17 - 21 | 9 - 25 - 10 | Cedar > | 16 - 5 - 23 |22 - 13 - 9 | --- |17 - 4 - 23 |17 - 6 - 21 |14 - 16 - 14 |24 - 12 - 8 | Dogwood > | 12 - 24 - 8 |23 - 15 - 6 |23 - 4 - 17 | --- |13 - 22 - 9 |22 - 7 - 15 |21 - 16 - 7 | Elm > | 6 - 27 - 11 |22 - 15 - 7 |21 - 6 - 17 | 9 - 22 - 13 | --- |21 - 8 - 15 |19 - 17 - 8 | Fir > | 12 - 10 - 22 |21 - 17 - 6 |14 - 16 - 14 |15 - 7 - 22 |15 - 8 - 21 | --- |19 - 17 - 8 | Ginkgo > | 7 - 18 - 19 |10 - 25 - 9 | 8 - 12 - 24 | 7 - 16 - 21 | 8 - 17 - 19 | 8 - 17 - 19 | --- | [Condorcet Winner] Condorcet Winner: Dogwood — matches the STAR winner [Condorcet Loser] Condorcet Loser: Birch — loses every head-to-head matchup [Divergence from STAR] STAR = Dogwood Choose-One (Plurality) = Aspen (differs from STAR) RCV-IRV = Aspen (differs from STAR) Approval = Aspen (differs from STAR) Note: 26 of 44 ballots (59%) 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) agrees with STAR, so RCV-IRV is the lone outlier — the classic center-squeeze signature. Full round-by-round reports (generated for review): RCV-IRV rounds: cases_tabulated/09_c7_b44_park-bloc-4-seats_RCV-IRV_tabulated.txt --- Bloc STAR Voting Method (4 winners) --- [Bloc STAR] Tabulating 44 ballots to fill 4 seats. Count × Aspen,Birch,Cedar,Dogwood,Elm,Fir,Ginkgo 4 × 5, 0, 0, 5, 5, 0, 0 3 × 0, 0, 5, 0, 0, 0, 0 2 × -, -, 4, -, -, 5, - 2 × -, -, 5, -, -, 5, - 2 × -, -, 5, -, -, 4, - 1 × 4, 4, 3, 5, 4, 3, 0 1 × 5, 0, 0, 4, 5, 0, 0 1 × 4, 5, 0, 4, 0, 2, 5 1 × 0, 1, 5, 2, 0, 5, 1 1 × 4, 0, 0, 5, 3, 1, 2 1 × 5, 5, 5, 5, 0, 5, 5 1 × 3, 0, 1, 5, 4, 2, 0 1 × -, -, 5, -, -, -, - 1 × 5, 0, 0, 3, 4, 2, 1 1 × 5, 0, 0, 5, 4, 0, 0 1 × 1, 0, 4, 5, 1, 0, 1 1 × 4, 1, 0, 3, 5, 1, 0 1 × 3, 2, 1, 4, 5, 0, 0 1 × 3, 1, 0, 4, 5, 2, 0 1 × 0, 0, 5, 0, 0, 5, 0 1 × 4, 2, 0, 5, 4, 2, 5 1 × 4, 2, 1, 5, 3, 0, 0 1 × 2, 0, 1, 5, 3, 1, 2 1 × 5, 1, 1, 5, 5, 2, 0 1 × 0, 1, 5, 0, 0, 4, 2 1 × 4, 0, 2, 0, 3, 1, 5 1 × -, -, -, -, -, 5, - 1 × 1, 1, 5, 0, 0, 4, 0 1 × 1, 1, 0, 4, 0, 1, 5 1 × 5, 5, 5, 0, 5, 5, 5 1 × 5, 1, 2, 5, 3, 0, 1 1 × 5, 1, 2, 3, 4, 0, 0 1 × 5, 5, 5, 5, 5, 5, 0 1 × 5, 2, 0, 1, 5, 5, 5 1 × 5, 0, 5, 5, 5, 5, 5 1 × 0, 2, 4, 1, 1, 5, 2 ('-' = left blank / abstained; '0' = scored zero — both count as 0 stars.) [Score Distribution] (how many ballots gave each star rating) Score Candidate 5 4 3 2 1 0 Abs | Total Avg all Avg rated Aspen 15 7 3 1 3 7 8 | 117 2.7 3.3 Birch 4 1 0 5 9 17 8 | 43 1.0 1.2 Cedar 16 4 1 3 5 14 1 | 110 2.5 2.6 Dogwood 17 5 3 1 2 8 8 | 118 2.7 3.3 Elm 13 6 5 0 2 10 8 | 106 2.4 2.9 Fir 13 4 1 6 5 14 1 | 101 2.3 2.3 Ginkgo 8 0 0 4 4 20 8 | 52 1.2 1.4 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. [Bloc STAR: Round 1: Scoring Round] The two highest-scoring candidates advance to the next round. Dogwood -- 118 -- First place Aspen -- 117 -- Second place Cedar -- 110 Elm -- 106 Fir -- 101 Ginkgo -- 52 Birch -- 43 Dogwood and Aspen advance. [Bloc STAR: Round 1: Automatic Runoff Round] The candidate preferred in the most head-to-head matchups wins. Dogwood -- 12 -- First place Aspen -- 8 Equal Support -- 24 Dogwood wins. Runoff math: 44 ballots cast − 24 Equal Support (no preference between the two finalists) ── 20 voters with a preference (majority = 11) Dogwood 12 (60%) · Aspen 8 (40%) ────────────────────────────────────────────────── [Bloc STAR: Round 2: Scoring Round] The two highest-scoring candidates advance to the next round. Aspen -- 117 -- First place Cedar -- 110 -- Second place Elm -- 106 Fir -- 101 Ginkgo -- 52 Birch -- 43 Aspen and Cedar advance. [Bloc STAR: Round 2: Automatic Runoff Round] The candidate preferred in the most head-to-head matchups wins. Aspen -- 23 -- First place Cedar -- 16 Equal Support -- 5 Aspen wins. Runoff math: 44 ballots cast − 5 Equal Support (no preference between the two finalists) ── 39 voters with a preference (majority = 20) Aspen 23 (59%) · Cedar 16 (41%) ────────────────────────────────────────────────── [Bloc STAR: Round 3: Scoring Round] The two highest-scoring candidates advance to the next round. Cedar -- 110 -- First place Elm -- 106 -- Second place Fir -- 101 Ginkgo -- 52 Birch -- 43 Cedar and Elm advance. [Bloc STAR: Round 3: Automatic Runoff Round] The candidate preferred in the most head-to-head matchups wins. Elm -- 21 -- First place Cedar -- 17 Equal Support -- 6 Elm wins. Runoff math: 44 ballots cast − 6 Equal Support (no preference between the two finalists) ── 38 voters with a preference (majority = 20) Elm 21 (55%) · Cedar 17 (45%) ────────────────────────────────────────────────── [Bloc STAR: Round 4: Scoring Round] The two highest-scoring candidates advance to the next round. Cedar -- 110 -- First place Fir -- 101 -- Second place Ginkgo -- 52 Birch -- 43 Cedar and Fir advance. [Bloc STAR: Round 4: Automatic Runoff Round] The candidate preferred in the most head-to-head matchups wins. Cedar -- 14 -- Tied for first place Fir -- 14 -- Tied for first place Equal Support -- 16 There's a two-way tie for first. [Bloc STAR: Round 4: Automatic Runoff Round: First tiebreaker] The highest-scoring candidate wins. Cedar -- 110 -- First place Fir -- 101 Cedar wins. [Bloc STAR: Winners — Bloc STAR Voting Method (4 winners)] Dogwood Aspen Elm Cedar