The smallest divergence — Proportional STAR (Allocated Score)¶

Generated from min_pr_c3_b2.yaml — do not edit by hand. Regenerate: python STARVote_LH_tabulation_engine/tools_adam/scripts/build_yaml_pages.py.

Method: Allocated Score (proportional STAR) · 2 seats · Expected winners: Ben, Cleo

Scenario¶

Two voters, three candidates, two seats — the smallest election in which Bloc STAR and Proportional STAR (Allocated Score) fill the council differently. Identical ballots to min_bloc_c3_b2.yaml; only the count differs. Both methods agree that Ben takes the first seat. They disagree about the second, and the reason is the whole difference between the two methods: Bloc lets the voter who already got Ben pick the second seat too, while Proportional STAR considers that voter represented and hands the second seat to the voter who has nobody yet.

Ballots¶

Row 1 = candidate names; each later row is one voter's 0–5 scores (a N × prefix = N identical ballots).

Ana,Ben,Cleo
0,0,1   # Voter 1 — likes only Cleo, and only mildly
2,3,0   # Voter 2 — prefers Ben, then Ana

What the engine says¶

The count, step by step — the rounds and how the winner is reached:

--- Allocated Score Voting Method (2 winners) ---

[Allocated Score Voting]
 Tabulating 2 ballots to fill 2 seats.
Ana,Ben,Cleo
  0,  0,   1
  2,  3,   0

[Allocated Score Voting: Round 1]
 The highest-scoring candidate wins a seat.
   Ben           -- 3 -- First place
   Ana           -- 2
   Cleo          -- 1
 Ben wins a seat.

[Allocated Score Voting: Round 1: Ballot allocation round]
 Allocating 1 ballots.

[Allocated Score Voting: Round 1: Ballot allocation round: Round 1]
 Allocating 1 ballot at score 3.

[Allocated Score Voting: Round 2]
 Tabulating 1 remaining ballots.
Ana,Ben,Cleo
  0,  0,   1
  2,  3,   0

[Allocated Score Voting: Winners — Allocated Score Voting Method (2 winners)]
 Ben
 Cleo

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 2-winner count below,
        so no Top-2 finalists are marked.
               |     Ana    |    Ben    |    Cleo   |
-----------------------------------------------------
         Ana > |    ---     |0 - 1 - 1  |1 - 0 - 1  |
         Ben > | 1 - 1 - 0  |   ---     |1 - 0 - 1  |
        Cleo > | 1 - 0 - 1  |1 - 0 - 1  |   ---     |

[Condorcet Winner]
  No strict Condorcet winner; unbeaten candidates: Ben, Cleo (pairwise ties)

[Condorcet Loser]
  No strict Condorcet loser; jointly weak Condorcet losers: Ana, Cleo (winless — pairwise ties)

[Score Distribution] (how many ballots gave each star rating)
                Score
Candidate  5  4  3  2  1  0  | Total   Avg
Ana        0  0  0  1  0  1  |     2   1.0
Ben        0  0  1  0  0  1  |     3   1.5
Cleo       0  0  0  0  1  1  |     1   0.5
 Hare quota is 1.

[Score Distribution] (how many ballots gave each star rating)
                Score
Candidate  5  4  3  2  1  0  | Total   Avg
Ana        0  0  0  1  0  1  |     2   1.0
Ben        0  0  1  0  0  1  |     3   1.5
Cleo       0  0  0  0  1  1  |     1   0.5
 The highest-scoring candidate wins a seat.
   Cleo          -- 1 -- First place
   Ana           -- 0
 Cleo 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/min_pr_c3_b2.yaml

The smallest divergence — Proportional STAR (Allocated Score)¶

Scenario¶

Ballots¶

What the engine says¶

Full audit — preference matrix, Condorcet, and score distribution¶

See also¶