====================================================================== SOURCE FILE: blocs_pr_c9_b10.yaml TABULATED FILE: blocs_pr_c9_b10_tabulated.txt ====================================================================== election_title: Left, Centre, Right — Proportional STAR fills the council scenario_description: > 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. voting_method: allocated num_winners: 3 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 # file: blocs_pr_c9_b10.yaml ====================================================================== TABULATION RESULTS ====================================================================== === Left, Centre, Right — Proportional STAR fills the council === 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. --- 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) [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 [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. [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 [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. [Allocated Score Voting: Winners — Allocated Score Voting Method (3 winners)] C1 L1 L2