====================================================================== SOURCE FILE: reversal_star_original.yaml TABULATED FILE: reversal_star_original_tabulated.txt ====================================================================== election_title: "Reversal symmetry — STAR, original: B (STAR does not winner=loser here)" scenario_description: |- The same 24-voter cycle scored 0-5 (rank->score 5/3/0). STAR elects B (scoring round B 69, runoff 17-7). The companion reversal_star_reversed reverses every preference and STAR elects A — a DIFFERENT winner, so STAR does not exhibit the winner=loser failure RCV-IRV shows on this example (see ../README.md). Honest scope note: this shows STAR AVOIDS the failure on these ballots; it is not a claim that STAR satisfies the reversal-symmetry criterion in general (STAR is a hybrid — additive scoring round + pairwise runoff — and the rank->score mapping is a modeling choice). The electorate is a Condorcet cycle, so no winner is "correct." paradoxes: [condorcet-cycle] voting_method: STAR num_winners: 1 ballots: |- Count:A,B,C 9:0,5,3 8:5,3,0 7:3,0,5 expected_winners: - B # file: reversal_star_original.yaml ====================================================================== TABULATION RESULTS ====================================================================== === Reversal symmetry — STAR, original: B (STAR does not winner=loser here) === The same 24-voter cycle scored 0-5 (rank->score 5/3/0). STAR elects B (scoring round B 69, runoff 17-7). The companion reversal_star_reversed reverses every preference and STAR elects A — a DIFFERENT winner, so STAR does not exhibit the winner=loser failure RCV-IRV shows on this example (see ../README.md). Honest scope note: this shows STAR AVOIDS the failure on these ballots; it is not a claim that STAR satisfies the reversal-symmetry criterion in general (STAR is a hybrid — additive scoring round + pairwise runoff — and the rank->score mapping is a modeling choice). The electorate is a Condorcet cycle, so no winner is "correct." --- Runoff (Preference) Matrix --- Head-to-head / pairwise comparison Legend: For - Equal Support - Against * indicates Top 2 Finalist | A | * B | * C | ------------------------------------------------------------- A > | --- |15 - 0 - 9 | 8 - 0 - 16 | * B > | 9 - 0 - 15 | --- |17 - 0 - 7 | * C > | 16 - 0 - 8 | 7 - 0 - 17 | --- | [Condorcet Winner] No Condorcet winner (majority cycle: A > B > C > A) [Divergence from STAR] STAR = B RCV-IRV = A (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/reversal_star_original_RCV-IRV_tabulated.txt --- STAR Voting Method (single winner) --- [STAR Voting] Tabulating 24 ballots. Count × A,B,C 9 × 0,5,3 8 × 5,3,0 7 × 3,0,5 [Score Distribution] (how many ballots gave each star rating) Score Candidate 5 4 3 2 1 0 | Total Avg A 8 0 7 0 0 9 | 61 2.5 B 9 0 8 0 0 7 | 69 2.9 C 7 0 9 0 0 8 | 62 2.6 [STAR Voting: Scoring Round] The two highest-scoring candidates advance to the next round. B -- 69 -- First place C -- 62 -- Second place A -- 61 B and C advance. [STAR Voting: Automatic Runoff Round] The candidate preferred in the most head-to-head matchups wins. B -- 17 -- First place C -- 7 Equal Support -- 0 B wins. Runoff math: 24 ballots cast − 0 Equal Support (no preference between the two finalists) ── 24 voters with a preference (majority = 13) B 17 (71%) · C 7 (29%) [STAR Voting: Winner — STAR Voting Method (single winner)] B