Favorite betrayal — the fix: STAR & Ranked Robin elect Center from the HONEST ballots¶
Generated from bv2227_3xgkck_honest_star.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: Center
▶ Live on BetterVoting: vote · results ↗ (election 3xgkck · test BV2227).
Scenario¶
The same electorate as fb_irv_honest / fb_irv_betray, scored honestly (favorite 5, compromise 3, worst 0). No strategy: the Left voters give Left 5, Center 3, Right 0. STAR elects CENTER — the Condorcet winner — with no betrayal required (scoring round Center 120, Right 80; runoff Center 21-13). The [Divergence from STAR] block confirms the contrast on these very ballots: STAR = Center, Ranked Robin = Center, but RCV-IRV = Right. That is the whole lesson: under RCV-IRV the Left voters had to rank their favorite second to get a good outcome (fb_irv_betray); under STAR and Ranked Robin they simply vote their honest preferences and the compromise wins. Honesty is the best ballot. Concept: favorite_betrayal_voting_301.md.
Ballots¶
Row 1 = candidate names; each later row is one voter's 0–5 scores (a N × prefix = N identical ballots).
Count:Left,Center,Right
12:5,3,0 # Left > Center > Right (honest — favorite 5, compromise 3, worst 0)
4:3,5,0 # Center > Left > Right
5:0,5,3 # Center > Right > Left
13:0,3,5 # Right > Center > Left
What the engine says¶
The count, step by step — the rounds and how the winner is reached:
[Divergence from STAR]
STAR = Center
Choose-One (Plurality) = Right (differs from STAR)
RCV-IRV = Right (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/bv2227_3xgkck_honest_star_RCV-IRV_tabulated.txt
--- STAR Voting Method (single winner) ---
[STAR Voting]
Tabulating 34 ballots.
Count × Left,Center,Right
13 × 0, 3, 5
12 × 5, 3, 0
5 × 0, 5, 3
4 × 3, 5, 0
[STAR Voting: Scoring Round]
The two highest-scoring candidates advance to the next round.
Center -- 120 -- First place
Right -- 80 -- Second place
Left -- 72
Center and Right advance.
[STAR Voting: Automatic Runoff Round]
The candidate preferred in the most head-to-head matchups wins.
Center -- 21 -- First place
Right -- 13
Equal Support -- 0
Center wins.
Runoff math:
34 ballots cast
− 0 Equal Support (no preference between the two finalists)
──
34 voters with a preference (majority = 18)
Center 21 (62%) · Right 13 (38%)
[STAR Voting: Winner — STAR Voting Method (single winner)]
Center
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
| Left | * Center | * Right |
-------------------------------------------------------------
Left > | --- |12 - 0 - 22 |16 - 0 - 18 |
* Center > | 22 - 0 - 12 | --- |21 - 0 - 13 |
* Right > | 18 - 0 - 16 |13 - 0 - 21 | --- |
[Condorcet Winner]
Condorcet Winner: Center — matches the STAR winner
[Condorcet Loser]
Condorcet Loser: Left — 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
Left 12 0 4 0 0 18 | 72 2.1
Center 9 0 25 0 0 0 | 120 3.5
Right 13 0 5 0 0 16 | 80 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/favorite_betrayal_irv/cases/bv2227_3xgkck_honest_star.yaml
See also¶
- Methods disagree on this election — its entry in the divergence review ledger
- Condorcet efficiency (topic hub)
- Runoff reversal (worked set)
- Glossary · all cases by method
More cases in this set: bv2227_3xgkck_honest_irv · bv2228_bgcmxx_betray_irv