election_title: "Kissel's five-way example (Ranked Robin) — the same ballots elect C"
scenario_description: >-
  The identical ballots as …_irv.yaml — the five-candidate field from p.5 of Adam
  Kissel's "Can Ranked-Choice Voting Work? A Conservative Approach" — counted by
  Ranked Robin (RCV-RR / Copeland) instead of instant runoff. Every ballot is read in
  every pairing, so the A voters' and B voters' second choices DO get counted, and C
  wins the round-robin 4-0: 511-489 over A, 700-300 over B, 808-192 over D, 991-9 over
  E. This is the direct refutation of the paper's claim that denying some voters their
  second choice is "essentially the same in all forms of RCV" — it is a property of
  ELIMINATION, not of the ranked ballot. Nothing about the ballots changed; only the
  count did.
bv_test_id: BV2278
bv_election_id: 8cdkkc
bv_results_url: https://bettervoting.com/8cdkkc/results
voting_method: RankedRobin   # = RCV-RR / Copeland — round-robin on a ranked ballot
num_winners: 1
# Pairwise: C beats A 511-489, B 700-300, D 808-192, E 991-9  -> Copeland 4-0.
# A beats B 609-391, D 508-492, E; B beats D 502-498, E; D beats E.
# No cycle, no pairwise tie: C is the unique Condorcet winner.
ballots: |-
  306:A>C>D>B>E     # A-partisans — moderate C is their second choice
  300:B>C>D>A>E     # B-partisans — moderate C is their second choice too
  111:C>A>B>D>E     # moderates leaning A
   91:C>B>A>D>E     # moderates leaning B
  183:D>A>C>B>E     # D's voters lean A
    9:E>D>C>A>B     # the <1% candidate the paper says is eliminated first
expected_winners:
  - C

# file: bv2278_8cdkkc_five_way_rr.yaml