election_title: "Condorcet's 1788 rebuttal to Borda — the ranked profile, counted pairwise"
scenario_description: |-
  The same election as condorcet_1788_star.yaml, kept in its original RANKED form
  and counted the way Condorcet said it should be: every pair, head-to-head.

      4 : Peter > Paul  > James
      3 : Paul  > James > Peter
      2 : Paul  > Peter > James
      2 : James > Peter > Paul

  The round-robin table is the argument. Peter beats Paul 6-5 and beats James 6-5,
  so Peter is the Condorcet winner. Borda's positional count elects Paul (14 points
  to Peter's 12), and plurality elects Paul too (5 first choices) — both crown a
  candidate who loses a direct majority contest, which was precisely the defect
  Borda had accused plurality of.

  Ranked Robin reads only the ORDER on each ballot, never the rank numbers, so it
  cannot be led astray by positional points the way Borda is. That distinction —
  same ranked ballot, different tabulation — is the whole reason "RCV" names a
  ballot and not a count.
video_script: |-
  Show the pairwise table and let it speak. Peter loses both the plurality count
  and the Borda count while beating every opponent one-on-one. This is where the
  Condorcet criterion comes from — it is not a modern invention, it is Condorcet's
  1788 objection written down as a rule.

  The engine has no Borda tabulator; the Borda figures are cross-checked with
  pref_voting (see the folder README for the runnable snippet).
bv_test_id: BV2250
bv_election_id: khcwm4
bv_results_url: https://bettervoting.com/khcwm4/results
voting_method: RankedRobin
num_winners: 1
ballots: |-
  4:Peter>Paul>James
  3:Paul>James>Peter
  2:Paul>Peter>James
  2:James>Peter>Paul
expected_winners:
  - Peter