FL 2026 poll — 2026 FL Attorney General¶
▶ Live on BetterVoting: vote · results ↗ (election xj8pxc) — an independent tabulator to check the winners below against.
Bucket — IRV_DIFFERS_ARTIFACT: RCV-IRV differs — tie-break artifact
Generated by STARVote_LH_tabulation_engine/tools_adam/scripts/build_divergence_index.py — rebuilt from the election file; do not hand-edit.
What happens¶
On these ballots RCV-IRV reports Lewis (DEM) rather than STAR's Rodriguez (DEM), but this is an artifact of score→rank conversion, not a robust method difference: 6 of 25 ballots have tied non-zero scores, so their ranks are set by an arbitrary candidate-priority order; the RCV-IRV winner flips when that priority order is reversed. Ranked Robin and the Condorcet (pairwise) winner both agree with STAR (Rodriguez (DEM)). Do not use this case to criticize RCV-IRV — the disagreement is a coin-flip created by equal scores and would vanish under a different (equally arbitrary) tie-break.
Winners by method¶
| Method | Winner |
|---|---|
| STAR | Rodriguez (DEM) |
| RCV-IRV | Lewis (DEM) |
| Ranked Robin (RCV-RR) | Rodriguez (DEM) |
| Approval | Lewis (DEM) |
| Range / Score | Rodriguez (DEM) |
| Condorcet | Rodriguez (DEM) |
Flags: 6 tied-score ballot(s); IRV winner flips under reversed priority (fragile tie); RR conversion-sensitive (weak=Rodriguez (DEM), strict=Lewis (DEM))
Source election: 01_STAR/04_Real_Elections/florida_2026_star_poll/cases/bxj8pxc_attorney_general.yaml · STAR tabulated mirror: bxj8pxc_attorney_general_tabulated.txt
4 candidates, 25 ballots.
The ballots¶
Each row is a group of identical score ballots (0 = no support, 5 = max).
| Count | Lewis (DEM) | Rodriguez (DEM) | Leskovich (REP) | Uthmeier (REP)* |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 5 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| 4 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| 1 | 0 | 0 | 5 | 0 |
| 3 | 5 | 5 | 0 | 0 |
| 5 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 5 |
| 3 | 4 | 5 | 0 | 0 |
| 2 | 0 | 5 | 0 | 0 |
| 1 | 0 | 0 | 4 | 4 |
| 1 | 5 | 5 | 1 | 0 |
| 1 | 0 | 0 | 5 | 5 |
| 1 | 5 | 3 | 1 | 0 |
| 1 | 4 | 2 | 0 | 0 |
| 1 | 0 | 0 | 5 | 4 |
STAR result (official)¶
Scoring round (sum of scores): Rodriguez (DEM) 50, Lewis (DEM) 46, Uthmeier (REP)* 38, Leskovich (REP) 21
Finalists (top two): Rodriguez (DEM) and Lewis (DEM)
Automatic runoff: Rodriguez (DEM) 5 vs Lewis (DEM) 3 (17 equal/no-preference)
STAR winner: Rodriguez (DEM)
Full LH STAR engine report:
--- Runoff (Preference) Matrix ---
Head-to-head / pairwise comparison
Legend: For - Equal Support - Against
* indicates Top 2 Finalist
| * Lewis (DEM) | * Rodriguez (DEM) |
--------------------------------------------------------------------
* Lewis (DEM) > | --- | 3 - 17 - 5 |
* Rodriguez (DEM) > | 5 - 17 - 3 | --- |
[Divergence from STAR]
STAR = Rodriguez (DEM)
Choose-One (Plurality) = Lewis (DEM) (differs from STAR)
RCV-IRV = Lewis (DEM) (differs from STAR)
Approval = Lewis (DEM) (differs from STAR)
Note: 6 of 25 ballots (24%) had equal non-zero scores, so their ranks were
decided by candidate priority order. The RCV-IRV result may be an
artifact of score-to-rank tie-breaking rather than a deep
difference.
Note: Ranked Robin (RCV-RR) agrees with STAR, so RCV-IRV is the lone
outlier — the classic center-squeeze signature.
--- STAR Voting Method (single winner) ---
Tabulating 25 ballots. Note: 2 of 25 ballots are marked as abstentions.
Count × Lewis (DEM),Rodriguez (DEM),Leskovich (REP),Uthmeier (REP)*
5 × &, &, &, 5
3 × 4, 5, 0, 0
2 × &, &, &, &
2 × 5, 5, 0, 0
2 × 0, 0, 0, 0
1 × 5, &, &, &
1 × &, &, 5, &
1 × 5, 5, &, &
1 × &, 5, 0, 0
1 × 0, 0, 4, 4
1 × 5, 5, 1, 0
1 × 0, 5, &, &
1 × 0, 0, 5, 5
1 × 5, 3, 1, 0
1 × 4, 2, 0, 0
1 × 0, 0, 5, 4
[Score Distribution] (how many ballots gave each star rating)
Score
Candidate 5 4 3 2 1 0 Abs | Total Avg all Avg rated
Lewis (DEM) 6 4 0 0 0 6 9 | 46 1.8 2.9
Rodriguez (DEM) 9 0 1 1 0 5 9 | 50 2.0 3.1
Leskovich (REP) 3 1 0 0 2 9 10 | 21 0.8 1.4
Uthmeier (REP)* 6 2 0 0 0 11 6 | 38 1.5 2.0
Avg all = Total / all ballots — a blank counts as 0, so this is the Total the Scoring Round ranks on, per ballot.
Avg rated = Total / the ballots that scored this candidate (Abs excluded) — support among voters who had an opinion.
Scoring Round
The two highest-scoring candidates advance to the next round.
Rodriguez (DEM) -- 50 -- First place
Lewis (DEM) -- 46 -- Second place
Uthmeier (REP)* -- 38
Leskovich (REP) -- 21
Rodriguez (DEM) and Lewis (DEM) advance.
Automatic Runoff Round
The candidate preferred in the most head-to-head matchups wins.
Rodriguez (DEM) -- 5 -- First place
Lewis (DEM) -- 3
Equal Support -- 17
Rodriguez (DEM) wins.
Voters with a preference: 8 of 25 (17 Equal Support).
Rodriguez (DEM) 5 (62%) vs Lewis (DEM) 3 (38%); majority = 5.
Winner — STAR Voting Method (single winner)
Rodriguez (DEM)
RCV-IRV — round by round¶
⚠️ This election has a fragile IRV tie (equal scores force an arbitrary tie-break). The round table below is only one realization; a different tie-break can change the winner. See the flag above.
--- RCV / Instant-Runoff Voting (single winner) ---
Tabulating 25 ballots (converted from score ballots; 0 = unranked, equal scores broken by candidate priority).
Ballots:
the ranking RCV-IRV reads (0 = unranked, equal scores broken by priority);
the source score ballot follows in () per column: Lewis (DEM), Rodriguez (DEM), Leskovich (REP), Uthmeier (REP)*
1 × Lewis (DEM) (5, 0, 0, 0)
4 × (all unranked) (0, 0, 0, 0)
1 × Leskovich (REP) (0, 0, 5, 0)
3 × Lewis (DEM) > Rodriguez (DEM) (5, 5, 0, 0)
5 × Uthmeier (REP)* (0, 0, 0, 5)
3 × Rodriguez (DEM) > Lewis (DEM) (4, 5, 0, 0)
2 × Rodriguez (DEM) (0, 5, 0, 0)
1 × Leskovich (REP) > Uthmeier (REP)* (0, 0, 4, 4)
1 × Lewis (DEM) > Rodriguez (DEM) > Leskovich (REP) (5, 5, 1, 0)
1 × Leskovich (REP) > Uthmeier (REP)* (0, 0, 5, 5)
1 × Lewis (DEM) > Rodriguez (DEM) > Leskovich (REP) (5, 3, 1, 0)
1 × Lewis (DEM) > Rodriguez (DEM) (4, 2, 0, 0)
1 × Leskovich (REP) > Uthmeier (REP)* (0, 0, 5, 4)
ROUND 1
Candidate Votes Status
--------------- ------- --------
Lewis (DEM) 7 Hopeful
Rodriguez (DEM) 5 Hopeful
Uthmeier (REP)* 5 Hopeful
Leskovich (REP) 4 Rejected
Blank Votes 4 Rejected
ROUND 2
Candidate Votes Status
--------------- ------- --------
Uthmeier (REP)* 8 Hopeful
Lewis (DEM) 7 Hopeful
Rodriguez (DEM) 5 Rejected
Leskovich (REP) 0 Rejected
Blank Votes 5 Rejected
FINAL RESULT
Candidate Votes Status
--------------- ------- --------
Lewis (DEM) 10 Elected
Uthmeier (REP)* 8 Rejected
Rodriguez (DEM) 0 Rejected
Leskovich (REP) 0 Rejected
Blank Votes 7 Rejected
Winner(s) — RCV / Instant-Runoff Voting (single winner)
Lewis (DEM)
--- Smith Set (the generalized Condorcet winner) ---
The smallest group whose every member beats every candidate outside it —
the honest answer to "who is even in contention?".
Smith set (1 of 4): Rodriguez (DEM)
Outside (3): Lewis (DEM), Leskovich (REP), Uthmeier (REP)*
One member ⇒ Rodriguez (DEM) is the Condorcet winner, beating every rival head-to-head.
RCV-IRV winner Lewis (DEM) is OUTSIDE the Smith set. ✗
Every member of the set (Rodriguez (DEM)) beats Lewis (DEM) head-to-head, yet
RCV-IRV elected Lewis (DEM) anyway. RCV-IRV is not Smith-efficient (nor
Condorcet-efficient) — this is the shape a center squeeze leaves behind.
More: 07_Concepts/topics/smith_set.md
NOTE: a generated cross-method view of the STAR ballots, for comparison only — not the official STAR result.
Ranked Robin (RCV-RR) — every pair, head-to-head¶
--- Ranked Robin (RCV-RR / Copeland) Method (single winner) ---
Tabulating 25 ballots (score ballots).
Ballots:
the ranking Ranked Robin reads ("=" = tied); source scores follow in () per column: Lewis (DEM), Rodriguez (DEM), Leskovich (REP), Uthmeier (REP)*
1 × Lewis (DEM) > Rodriguez (DEM)=Leskovich (REP)=Uthmeier (REP)* (5, 0, 0, 0)
4 × Lewis (DEM)=Rodriguez (DEM)=Leskovich (REP)=Uthmeier (REP)* (0, 0, 0, 0)
1 × Leskovich (REP) > Lewis (DEM)=Rodriguez (DEM)=Uthmeier (REP)* (0, 0, 5, 0)
3 × Lewis (DEM)=Rodriguez (DEM) > Leskovich (REP)=Uthmeier (REP)* (5, 5, 0, 0)
5 × Uthmeier (REP)* > Lewis (DEM)=Rodriguez (DEM)=Leskovich (REP) (0, 0, 0, 5)
3 × Rodriguez (DEM) > Lewis (DEM) > Leskovich (REP)=Uthmeier (REP)* (4, 5, 0, 0)
2 × Rodriguez (DEM) > Lewis (DEM)=Leskovich (REP)=Uthmeier (REP)* (0, 5, 0, 0)
1 × Leskovich (REP)=Uthmeier (REP)* > Lewis (DEM)=Rodriguez (DEM) (0, 0, 4, 4)
1 × Lewis (DEM)=Rodriguez (DEM) > Leskovich (REP) > Uthmeier (REP)* (5, 5, 1, 0)
1 × Leskovich (REP)=Uthmeier (REP)* > Lewis (DEM)=Rodriguez (DEM) (0, 0, 5, 5)
1 × Lewis (DEM) > Rodriguez (DEM) > Leskovich (REP) > Uthmeier (REP)* (5, 3, 1, 0)
1 × Lewis (DEM) > Rodriguez (DEM) > Leskovich (REP)=Uthmeier (REP)* (4, 2, 0, 0)
1 × Leskovich (REP) > Uthmeier (REP)* > Lewis (DEM)=Rodriguez (DEM) (0, 0, 5, 4)
Round-Robin — every pair, head-to-head (For – Against):
Rodriguez (DEM) beats Lewis (DEM) 5 – 3
Lewis (DEM) beats Leskovich (REP) 10 – 4
Lewis (DEM) beats Uthmeier (REP)* 10 – 8
Rodriguez (DEM) beats Leskovich (REP) 11 – 4
Rodriguez (DEM) beats Uthmeier (REP)* 11 – 8
Uthmeier (REP)* beats Leskovich (REP) 5 – 4
--- Pairwise (Round-Robin) Matrix ---
Head-to-head / pairwise comparison — the Ranked Robin tally
Legend: For - Equal Support - Against (row vs column)
| Lewis (DEM) | Rodriguez (DEM) | Leskovich (REP) | Uthmeier (REP)* |
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lewis (DEM) > | --- | 3 - 17 - 5 | 10 - 11 - 4 | 10 - 7 - 8 |
Rodriguez (DEM) > | 5 - 17 - 3 | --- | 11 - 10 - 4 | 11 - 6 - 8 |
Leskovich (REP) > | 4 - 11 - 10 | 4 - 10 - 11 | --- | 4 - 16 - 5 |
Uthmeier (REP)* > | 8 - 7 - 10 | 8 - 6 - 11 | 5 - 16 - 4 | --- |
Win–loss record — Copeland score = wins + ½·ties (highest score wins; ties broken by the Ranked Robin degrees, then lot order):
# Candidate W–L–T Copeland Margin Beats
1 Rodriguez (DEM) 3–0–0 3 +12 Lewis (DEM), Uthmeier (REP)*, Leskovich (REP)
2 Lewis (DEM) 2–1–0 2 +6 Uthmeier (REP)*, Leskovich (REP)
3 Uthmeier (REP)* 1–2–0 1 -4 Leskovich (REP)
4 Leskovich (REP) 0–3–0 0 -14 —
Winner — Ranked Robin (RCV-RR): Rodriguez (DEM)
beats every opponent head-to-head — the Condorcet winner.
--- Smith Set (the generalized Condorcet winner) ---
The smallest group whose every member beats every candidate outside it —
the honest answer to "who is even in contention?".
Smith set (1 of 4): Rodriguez (DEM)
Outside (3): Lewis (DEM), Leskovich (REP), Uthmeier (REP)*
One member ⇒ Rodriguez (DEM) is the Condorcet winner, beating every rival head-to-head.
Ranked Robin (RCV-RR) winner Rodriguez (DEM) is INSIDE the Smith set. ✓
Guaranteed: Ranked Robin (Copeland) is Smith-efficient — every member of
the set outscores every outsider, so the top of the win–loss table is
always inside the set, however the tie among them is then broken.
More: 07_Concepts/topics/smith_set.md