Upward monotonicity (Alaska 2022) — AFTER: raise the winner, she loses¶

Generated from alaska_upward_after.yaml — do not edit by hand. Regenerate: python STARVote_LH_tabulation_engine/tools_adam/scripts/build_yaml_pages.py.

Method: RCV-IRV (Instant Runoff) · 1 seat · Expected winner: Begich

Scenario¶

The BEFORE file (alaska_upward_before) exactly, with ONE change: 7 of the 23 Palin-only ("bullet") ballots are switched to Peltola>Palin. Nothing else moves. This gives the previous winner Peltola MORE first-place support (80 -> 87) — yet she now LOSES. Why: the shifted votes pull Palin's first-round count (63 -> 56) below Begich's 57, so PALIN is eliminated first instead of Begich; Palin's ballots transfer 36 to Begich, and Begich beats Peltola in the final, 93-91. Ranking the winner higher made the winner lose — the upward monotonicity paradox (Graham-Squire & McCune, arXiv:2301.12075; realrcv.equal.vote/alaska22). Model note: at this 200-voter reduction, moving 6 ballots makes an exact 57-57 Begich/Palin tie (a coarse-model artifact); 7 clears it cleanly for a tie-free, engine-independent demonstration. The real election's figure is ~6,000 Palin-only ballots, which crosses the threshold comfortably. Companion page: upward_monotonicity_alaska.md.

Ballots¶

Each row is one voter's ranking, most-preferred first (N: prefix = N identical ballots).

50:Peltola>Begich>Palin
36:Palin>Begich>Peltola
29:Begich>Palin>Peltola
25:Peltola
16:Palin
16:Begich>Peltola>Palin
12:Begich
7:Peltola>Palin
5:Peltola>Palin>Begich
4:Palin>Peltola>Begich

What the engine says¶

Round-by-round Sankey diagram: each candidate's votes as a band, and where the votes of an eliminated candidate transferred to.

Where the votes went. Band thickness is votes; a band leaving an eliminated candidate lands on whoever that ballot ranked next, or on inactive if it ranked nobody who was left.

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

--- RCV / Instant-Runoff Voting (single winner) ---
  Upward monotonicity (Alaska 2022) — AFTER: raise the winner, she loses
 Tabulating 200 ballots (ranked ballots).

ROUND 1
Candidate      Votes  Status
-----------  -------  --------
Peltola           87  Hopeful
Begich            57  Hopeful
Palin             56  Rejected

FINAL RESULT
Candidate      Votes  Status
-----------  -------  --------
Begich            93  Elected
Peltola           91  Rejected
Palin              0  Rejected
Blank Votes       16  Rejected


Winner(s) — RCV / Instant-Runoff Voting (single winner)
  Begich

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

--- Smith Set (the generalized Condorcet winner) ---
The smallest group whose every member beats every candidate outside it —
the honest answer to "who is even in contention?".
   Smith set (1 of 3): Begich
   Outside (2):        Peltola, Palin
   One member ⇒ Begich is the Condorcet winner, beating every rival head-to-head.
   RCV-IRV winner Begich is INSIDE the Smith set. ✓
      Not guaranteed — RCV-IRV is not Smith-efficient — but it holds here.
   More: 07_Concepts/topics/smith_set.md

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/monotonicity/cases/alaska_upward_after.yaml

Upward monotonicity (Alaska 2022) — AFTER: raise the winner, she loses¶

Scenario¶

Ballots¶

What the engine says¶

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

See also¶