Felsenthal Ex.3 District II — STAR: also Bruno¶

Generated from bv2148_h87k6v_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: Bruno

▶ Live on BetterVoting: vote · results ↗ (election h87k6v · test BV2148).

Scenario¶

Race 2 of 2 in District II of the Felsenthal Reinforcement-paradox trio (BV2148, bvid h87k6v; BV-confirmed). Source: Dan S. Felsenthal (2010), Appendix A2, Example 3 — see bv2148_h87k6v_irv.yaml for the setup. The same 15 ballots with ranks mapped 5/3/1. Scores: Alma 41, Bruno 47, Cora 47 — Bruno and Cora advance (both clear of Alma; no advancement tie), and Bruno wins the automatic runoff 8–7. Same winner as the runoff procedure; the reinforcement contrast appears at the combined stage (BV2149). Live results: https://bettervoting.com/h87k6v/results

Ballots¶

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

Alma,Bruno,Cora
5,1,3
5,1,3
5,1,3
5,1,3
5,1,3
5,1,3
1,5,3
1,5,3
1,5,3
1,5,3
1,5,3
1,5,3
1,5,3
1,5,3
3,1,5

What the engine says¶

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

[Divergence from STAR]
  STAR     = Bruno
  Approval = Cora   (differs from STAR)

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

[STAR Voting]
 Tabulating 15 ballots.
Count × Alma,Bruno,Cora
    8 ×    1,    5,   3
    6 ×    5,    1,   3
    1 ×    3,    1,   5

[STAR Voting: Scoring Round]
 The two highest-scoring candidates advance to the next round.
   Bruno         -- 47 -- First place
   Cora          -- 47 -- Second place
   Alma          -- 41
 Bruno and Cora advance.

[STAR Voting: Automatic Runoff Round]
 The candidate preferred in the most head-to-head matchups wins.
   Bruno         -- 8 -- First place
   Cora          -- 7
   Equal Support -- 0
 Bruno wins.
   Runoff math:
     15  ballots cast
   −  0  Equal Support (no preference between the two finalists)
     ──
     15  voters with a preference  (majority = 8)
           Bruno 8 (53%)  ·  Cora 7 (47%)

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

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
               |     Alma   | * Bruno   |  * Cora   |
-----------------------------------------------------
        Alma > |    ---     |7 - 0 - 8  |6 - 0 - 9  |
     * Bruno > | 8 - 0 - 7  |   ---     |8 - 0 - 7  |
      * Cora > | 9 - 0 - 6  |7 - 0 - 8  |   ---     |

[Condorcet Winner]
  Condorcet Winner: Bruno — matches the STAR winner

[Condorcet Loser]
  Condorcet Loser: Alma — 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
Alma        6   0   1   0   8   0  |    41   2.7
Bruno       8   0   0   0   7   0  |    47   3.1
Cora        1   0  14   0   0   0  |    47   3.1

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/felsenthal_paradoxes/cases/bv2148_h87k6v_star.yaml

See also¶

Methods disagree on this election — its entry in the divergence review ledger
Ties & tie-breaking (topic hub)
Runoff reversal (worked set)
Glossary · all cases by method