Center squeeze — the voteline 1D spectrum (Red / Green / Yellow)¶
Generated from center_squeeze_voteline_1d.yaml — do not edit by hand. Regenerate: python STARVote_LH_tabulation_engine/tools_adam/scripts/build_yaml_pages.py.
Method: STAR (single winner) · 1 seat · Expected winner: Green
Scenario¶
The classic 1-D spectrum demo (zesty.ca/voting/voteline): Red on the left, Green in the center, Yellow on the right, with voters spread across the line. Green is the CONDORCET winner (beats Red AND Yellow head-to-head) but has the FEWEST first choices (31.3%), so RCV-IRV eliminates Green first and YELLOW wins (52.9%) — the center squeeze. STAR advances Green on strength of support and wins the runoff 65-35. Plurality also picks Yellow. Approval / Borda / Condorcet / Ranked Robin all pick Green. Scores are a reasonable 1-D spatial model (own side 5, adjacent center 3, far side 0-1). Weights are percentages x10. Level 201/301. Lesson: 06_Other/RCV_IRV/concepts/RCV_IRV_center_squeeze.md
Ballots¶
Row 1 = candidate names; each later row is one voter's 0–5 scores (a N × prefix = N identical ballots).
Red, Green, Yellow
332 × 5, 3, 0 # red > green > yellow (left bloc)
138 × 3, 5, 1 # green > red > yellow (center-left)
175 × 1, 5, 3 # green > yellow > red (center-right)
353 × 0, 3, 5 # yellow > green > red (right bloc)
What the engine says¶
The count, step by step — the rounds and how the winner is reached:
[Divergence from STAR]
STAR = Green
Choose-One (Plurality) = Yellow (differs from STAR)
RCV-IRV = Yellow (differs from STAR)
Note: no ballots had tied scores, so RCV-IRV vs STAR here is a genuine
method difference, not a tie-breaking artifact.
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/center_squeeze_voteline_1d_RCV-IRV_tabulated.txt
--- STAR Voting Method (single winner) ---
[STAR Voting]
Tabulating 998 ballots.
Count × Red,Green,Yellow
353 × 0, 3, 5
332 × 5, 3, 0
175 × 1, 5, 3
138 × 3, 5, 1
[STAR Voting: Scoring Round]
The two highest-scoring candidates advance to the next round.
Green -- 3620 -- First place
Yellow -- 2428 -- Second place
Red -- 2249
Green and Yellow advance.
[STAR Voting: Automatic Runoff Round]
The candidate preferred in the most head-to-head matchups wins.
Green -- 645 -- First place
Yellow -- 353
Equal Support -- 0
Green wins.
Runoff math:
998 ballots cast
− 0 Equal Support (no preference between the two finalists)
───
998 voters with a preference (majority = 500)
Green 645 (65%) · Yellow 353 (35%)
[STAR Voting: Winner — STAR Voting Method (single winner)]
Green
Full audit — preference matrix, Condorcet, and score distribution¶
--- Runoff (Preference) Matrix ---
Head-to-head / pairwise comparison
Legend: For - Equal Support - Against
* indicates Top 2 Finalist
| Red | * Green | * Yellow |
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Red > | --- |332 - 0 - 666 |470 - 0 - 528 |
* Green > | 666 - 0 - 332 | --- |645 - 0 - 353 |
* Yellow > | 528 - 0 - 470 |353 - 0 - 645 | --- |
[Condorcet Winner]
Condorcet Winner: Green — matches the STAR winner
[Condorcet Loser]
Condorcet Loser: Red — loses every head-to-head matchup
[Score Distribution] (how many ballots gave each star rating)
Score
Candidate 5 4 3 2 1 0 | Total Avg
Red 332 0 138 0 175 353 | 2249 2.3
Green 313 0 685 0 0 0 | 3620 3.6
Yellow 353 0 175 0 138 332 | 2428 2.4
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/center_squeeze/cases/center_squeeze_voteline_1d.yaml
See also¶
- Methods disagree on this election — its entry in the divergence review ledger
- Center squeeze (topic hub)
- Condorcet efficiency (topic hub)
- Runoff reversal (worked set)
- Glossary · all cases by method
More cases in this set: center_squeeze_irv · center_squeeze_star