election_title: Three brothers, one fruit — Ranked Robin confirms the majoritarian winner

voting_method: RankedRobin
num_winners: 1

bv_test_id: BV2279
bv_election_id: qywq7d
bv_results_url: https://bettervoting.com/qywq7d/results

scenario_description: |
  Race 2 of 3 in the three-brothers election (BV2279, bvid qywq7d; BV-confirmed).
  The setup, the source and the x5/11 rescale are documented in the STAR race,
  bv2279_qywq7d_star.yaml.

  The same three opinions written as ranks. Boys 1 and 2 rank Banana first;
  boy 3 ranks Banana LAST, behind a fruit he scored a 2.

  Ranked Robin elects Banana on 2 pairwise wins — Banana beats Orange 2-1 and
  Apple 2-1, Orange beats Apple 3-0. Banana is the Condorcet winner, Apple the
  Condorcet loser.

  This race exists to show that the majoritarian answer is not an artifact of
  STAR's runoff. A method that reads only the order, and reads all of it, lands
  on Banana too — because the majoritarian ideal is exactly what pairwise
  counting measures.

  And it shows what the ranks cost. Written this way, boy 3's ballot says
  "Orange, then Apple, then Banana" — the same sentence he would write if
  Banana were merely his least favorite rather than worth nothing at all. The
  0 that makes Orange the utilitarian winner is not in this file. Compare the
  Approval race (bv2279_qywq7d_approval.yaml), which keeps enough of the level
  to elect Orange.

video_script: |
  Run this straight after the STAR race. Same three people, same opinions, and
  the winner doesn't move — that's the point, and it's the honest one: Banana
  really is what a majority prefers, twice over, by two different counts.

  Then the turn: ask what boy 3's ranking says about how much he'd mind. It
  says nothing. Hold that against the STAR race's scoring round, where his 0
  was the whole reason Orange led.

ballots: |-
  Banana>Orange>Apple   # Boy 1
  Banana>Orange>Apple   # Boy 2
  Orange>Apple>Banana   # Boy 3

expected_winners: [Banana]

# file: bv2279_qywq7d_ranked_robin.yaml