Left, Centre, Right — Proportional STAR fills the council¶
Generated from blocs_pr_c9_b10.yaml — do not edit by hand. Regenerate: python STARVote_LH_tabulation_engine/tools_adam/scripts/build_yaml_pages.py.
Method: Allocated Score (proportional STAR) · 3 seats
Scenario¶
Ten voters split into three camps — six on the left, two in the centre, two on the right — choosing three seats from nine candidates, three per camp. Every voter scores their own camp highly, the neighbouring camp modestly, and the far camp at zero. Identical ballots to blocs_bloc_c9_b10.yaml; only the count differs. This is the proportional half: each seat is decided by the voters who do not yet have a representative.
Ballots¶
Row 1 = candidate names; each later row is one voter's 0–5 scores (a N × prefix = N identical ballots).
L1,L2,L3,C1,C2,C3,R1,R2,R3
5,5,4,2,2,1,0,0,0 # Left voter 1
5,4,5,2,1,2,0,0,0 # Left voter 2
5,5,4,1,2,2,0,0,0 # Left voter 3
4,5,5,2,2,1,0,0,0 # Left voter 4
5,4,5,2,2,1,0,0,0 # Left voter 5
5,5,4,2,1,2,0,0,0 # Left voter 6
2,2,1,5,5,4,2,2,1 # Centre voter 1
1,2,2,5,4,5,2,1,2 # Centre voter 2
0,0,0,2,2,1,5,5,4 # Right voter 1
0,0,0,1,2,2,5,4,5 # Right voter 2
What the engine says¶
The count, step by step — the rounds and how the winner is reached:
[Divergence from STAR]
STAR = L1
RCV-RR = L2 (differs from STAR)
Full round-by-round reports (generated for review):
RCV-RR round-robin: cases_tabulated/blocs_pr_c9_b10_RCV-RR_tabulated.txt
--- Allocated Score Voting Method (3 winners) ---
[Allocated Score Voting]
Tabulating 10 ballots to fill 3 seats.
L1,L2,L3,C1,C2,C3,R1,R2,R3
5, 5, 4, 2, 2, 1, 0, 0, 0
5, 4, 5, 2, 1, 2, 0, 0, 0
5, 5, 4, 1, 2, 2, 0, 0, 0
4, 5, 5, 2, 2, 1, 0, 0, 0
5, 4, 5, 2, 2, 1, 0, 0, 0
5, 5, 4, 2, 1, 2, 0, 0, 0
2, 2, 1, 5, 5, 4, 2, 2, 1
1, 2, 2, 5, 4, 5, 2, 1, 2
0, 0, 0, 2, 2, 1, 5, 5, 4
0, 0, 0, 1, 2, 2, 5, 4, 5
[Allocated Score Voting: Round 1]
The highest-scoring candidate wins a seat.
L1 -- 32 -- Tied for first place
L2 -- 32 -- Tied for first place
L3 -- 30
C1 -- 24
C2 -- 23
C3 -- 21
R1 -- 14
R2 -- 12
R3 -- 12
There's a two-way tie for first.
*** No official tie-breaking lot numbers were provided.
Ties are resolved using a fallback order: CSV column order.
Lot-number priority order: ['L1', 'L2', 'L3', 'C1', 'C2', 'C3', 'R1', 'R2', 'R3']
[Tiebreaker: Lot Number Priority]
Tie among: ['L1', 'L2']
Resolved: ['L1'] (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.
[Allocated Score Voting: Round 1: Ballot allocation round]
Allocating 3+1/3 ballots.
[Allocated Score Voting: Round 1: Ballot allocation round: Round 1]
Allocating 5 ballots at score 5.
This allocation overfills the quota. Returning fractional surplus.
Allocating only 66.67% of these ballots.
Keeping these ballots, but multiplying their weights by 1/3.
5 ballots reweighted from 1 to 1/3.
[Allocated Score Voting: Round 2]
The highest-scoring candidate wins a seat.
C1 -- 18 -- First place
C2 -- 17+2/3
L2 -- 16+2/3
C3 -- 15+2/3
L3 -- 15+1/3
R1 -- 14
R2 -- 12
R3 -- 12
C1 wins a seat.
[Allocated Score Voting: Round 2: Ballot allocation round]
Allocating 3+1/3 ballots.
[Allocated Score Voting: Round 2: Ballot allocation round: Round 1]
Allocating 2 ballots at score 5.
[Allocated Score Voting: Round 2: Ballot allocation round: Round 2]
Remaining allocation quota is 4/3.
Allocating 2 ballots at score 2.
This allocation overfills the remaining quota. Returning fractional surplus.
Allocating only 66.67% of these ballots.
Keeping these ballots, but multiplying their weights by 1/3.
2 ballots reweighted from 1 to 1/3.
[Allocated Score Voting: Round 3]
Tabulating 8 remaining ballots.
L1,L2,L3,C1,C2,C3,R1,R2,R3
5, 5, 4, 2, 2, 1, 0, 0, 0
5, 4, 5, 2, 1, 2, 0, 0, 0
5, 5, 4, 1, 2, 2, 0, 0, 0
4, 5, 5, 2, 2, 1, 0, 0, 0
5, 4, 5, 2, 2, 1, 0, 0, 0
5, 5, 4, 2, 1, 2, 0, 0, 0
2, 2, 1, 5, 5, 4, 2, 2, 1
1, 2, 2, 5, 4, 5, 2, 1, 2
0, 0, 0, 2, 2, 1, 5, 5, 4
0, 0, 0, 1, 2, 2, 5, 4, 5
[Allocated Score Voting: Winners — Allocated Score Voting Method (3 winners)]
C1
L1
L2
Full audit — preference matrix, Condorcet, and score distribution¶
--- Preference Matrix ---
Head-to-head / pairwise comparison
Legend: For - Equal Support - Against
Informational only — not part of the 3-winner count below,
so no Top-2 finalists are marked.
| L1 | L2 | L3 | C1 | C2 | C3 | R1 | R2 | R3 |
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
L1 > | --- |2 - 6 - 2 |4 - 4 - 2 |6 - 0 - 4 |6 - 0 - 4 |6 - 0 - 4 |6 - 1 - 3 |6 - 2 - 2 |7 - 0 - 3 |
L2 > | 2 - 6 - 2 | --- |4 - 4 - 2 |6 - 0 - 4 |6 - 0 - 4 |6 - 0 - 4 |6 - 2 - 2 |7 - 1 - 2 |7 - 1 - 2 |
L3 > | 2 - 4 - 4 |2 - 4 - 4 | --- |6 - 0 - 4 |6 - 0 - 4 |6 - 0 - 4 |6 - 1 - 3 |7 - 0 - 3 |6 - 2 - 2 |
C1 > | 4 - 0 - 6 |4 - 0 - 6 |4 - 0 - 6 | --- |3 - 5 - 2 |5 - 3 - 2 |8 - 0 - 2 |8 - 0 - 2 |8 - 0 - 2 |
C2 > | 4 - 0 - 6 |4 - 0 - 6 |4 - 0 - 6 |2 - 5 - 3 | --- |5 - 2 - 3 |8 - 0 - 2 |8 - 0 - 2 |8 - 0 - 2 |
C3 > | 4 - 0 - 6 |4 - 0 - 6 |4 - 0 - 6 |2 - 3 - 5 |3 - 2 - 5 | --- |8 - 0 - 2 |8 - 0 - 2 |8 - 0 - 2 |
R1 > | 3 - 1 - 6 |2 - 2 - 6 |3 - 1 - 6 |2 - 0 - 8 |2 - 0 - 8 |2 - 0 - 8 | --- |2 - 8 - 0 |2 - 8 - 0 |
R2 > | 2 - 2 - 6 |2 - 1 - 7 |3 - 0 - 7 |2 - 0 - 8 |2 - 0 - 8 |2 - 0 - 8 |0 - 8 - 2 | --- |2 - 6 - 2 |
R3 > | 3 - 0 - 7 |2 - 1 - 7 |2 - 2 - 6 |2 - 0 - 8 |2 - 0 - 8 |2 - 0 - 8 |0 - 8 - 2 |2 - 6 - 2 | --- |
[Condorcet Winner]
No strict Condorcet winner; unbeaten candidates: L1, L2 (pairwise ties)
[Condorcet Loser]
No strict Condorcet loser; jointly weak Condorcet losers: R2, R3 (winless — pairwise ties)
[Score Distribution] (how many ballots gave each star rating)
Score
Candidate 5 4 3 2 1 0 | Total Avg
L1 5 1 0 1 1 2 | 32 3.2
L2 4 2 0 2 0 2 | 32 3.2
L3 3 3 0 1 1 2 | 30 3.0
C1 2 0 0 6 2 0 | 24 2.4
C2 1 1 0 6 2 0 | 23 2.3
C3 1 1 0 4 4 0 | 21 2.1
R1 2 0 0 2 0 6 | 14 1.4
R2 1 1 0 1 1 6 | 12 1.2
R3 1 1 0 1 1 6 | 12 1.2
Hare quota is 10/3.
[Score Distribution] (how many ballots gave each star rating)
Score
Candidate 5 4 3 2 1 0 | Total Avg
L1 5 1 0 1 1 2 | 32 3.2
L2 4 2 0 2 0 2 | 32 3.2
L3 3 3 0 1 1 2 | 30 3.0
C1 2 0 0 6 2 0 | 24 2.4
C2 1 1 0 6 2 0 | 23 2.3
C3 1 1 0 4 4 0 | 21 2.1
R1 2 0 0 2 0 6 | 14 1.4
R2 1 1 0 1 1 6 | 12 1.2
R3 1 1 0 1 1 6 | 12 1.2
The highest-scoring candidate wins a seat.
L2 -- 9+1/3 -- First place
L3 -- 9
R1 -- 6+2/3
R3 -- 6+1/3
C2 -- 6
R2 -- 5+2/3
C3 -- 5+1/3
L2 wins a seat.
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 method_comparisons/bloc_vs_pr/cases/blocs_pr_c9_b10.yaml
See also¶
More cases in this set: blocs_bloc_c9_b10 · min_bloc_c3_b2 · min_pr_c3_b2