FairVote white paper — Washington 2010 (BURIAL): the squeeze works on STAR, but IRV resists it¶

Generated from bv2232_24b623_wa_2010_burial.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: Harper

▶ Live on BetterVoting: vote · results ↗ (election 24b623 · test BV2232).

Scenario¶

The coordinated squeeze from FairVote's white paper: the Harper faction, to unseat the moderate Berkey, scores Harper 5, the conservative Rieger 4, and Berkey 0 — inflating Rieger to push Berkey below him. Same voters/first-choices as wa_2010_honest. It works under STAR: Berkey collapses to 225 and misses the runoff (Rieger 320, Harper 305), and STAR elects Harper — FairVote's claim, CONCEDED. But the honest full picture matters (see ../README.md): honest STAR elects Berkey; the burial requires the Harper faction to rate the conservative Rieger a 4 (a risky move that could elect Rieger outright in a redder electorate); AND RCV-IRV on these very strategic ballots STILL elects Berkey, because Rieger's transfers flow back to her. So this case cuts fairly: STAR is manipulable here and IRV happens to resist THIS burial — but IRV squeezes centrists under sincere voting (its systematic flaw), where STAR needs a conspiracy. Concept: ../README.md.

Ballots¶

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

Count:Berkey,Harper,Rieger
35:5,3,1   # Berkey base — honest
40:0,5,4   # Harper faction buries Berkey, boosts the conservative Rieger
25:2,0,5   # Rieger base — honest

What the engine says¶

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

[Divergence from STAR]
  STAR    = Harper
  RCV-IRV = Berkey   (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/bv2232_24b623_wa_2010_burial_RCV-IRV_tabulated.txt

[Runoff Reversal]
 - Score Round Winner(s) = (Rieger)
 - Runoff Round Winner   = (Harper)
  Candidate Rieger earned the highest total score, but
  Candidate Harper won the automatic runoff — not a malfunction,
  STAR working as designed: the runoff elects the finalist preferred
  by the majority (of voters with a preference).

--- STAR Voting Method (single winner) ---

[STAR Voting]
 Tabulating 100 ballots.
Count × Berkey,Harper,Rieger
   40 ×      0,     5,     4
   35 ×      5,     3,     1
   25 ×      2,     0,     5

[STAR Voting: Scoring Round]
 The two highest-scoring candidates advance to the next round.
   Rieger        -- 320 -- First place
   Harper        -- 305 -- Second place
   Berkey        -- 225
 Rieger and Harper advance.

[STAR Voting: Automatic Runoff Round]
 The candidate preferred in the most head-to-head matchups wins.
   Harper        -- 75 -- First place
   Rieger        -- 25
   Equal Support --  0
 Harper wins.
   Runoff math:
     100  ballots cast
   −   0  Equal Support (no preference between the two finalists)
     ───
     100  voters with a preference  (majority = 51)
           Harper 75 (75%)  ·  Rieger 25 (25%)

[STAR Voting: Winner — STAR Voting Method (single winner)]
 Harper

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
                 |     Berkey   |  * Harper   |  * Rieger   |
-------------------------------------------------------------
        Berkey > |     ---      |60 -  0 - 40 |35 -  0 - 65 |
      * Harper > | 40 -  0 - 60 |    ---      |75 -  0 - 25 |
      * Rieger > | 65 -  0 - 35 |25 -  0 - 75 |    ---      |

[Condorcet Winner]
  No Condorcet winner (majority cycle: Berkey > Harper > Rieger > Berkey)

[Score Distribution] (how many ballots gave each star rating)
                   Score
Candidate   5   4   3   2   1   0  | Total   Avg
Berkey     35   0   0  25   0  40  |   225   2.3
Harper     40   0  35   0   0  25  |   305   3.1
Rieger     25  40   0   0  35   0  |   320   3.2

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/fairvote_star_whitepaper/cases/bv2232_24b623_wa_2010_burial.yaml

FairVote white paper — Washington 2010 (BURIAL): the squeeze works on STAR, but IRV resists it¶

Scenario¶

Ballots¶

What the engine says¶

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

See also¶