Condorcet centrist, minimal form (8 voters) — STAR elects Casey¶
Generated from bv2171_h93tm4_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: Casey
▶ Live on BetterVoting: vote · results ↗ (election h93tm4 · test BV2171).
Scenario¶
The STAR race (lead of seven) in the minimal Condorcet-centrist election (BV2171, bvid h93tm4; BV-confirmed). The fewest ballots that still reproduce the whole center-squeeze symptom: 8 voters, three candidates — Avery (left pole), Blake (right pole), Casey (centrist). Casey is the Condorcet winner (beats Avery 5–3 and Blake 5–3) but has only 2 first choices, the fewest. Ranks mapped to 0–5 scores (top=5, mid=3, bottom=1): Casey tops the score round 28 (Avery/Blake tie at 22) and wins the automatic runoff 5–3.
Seven methods, one electorate. Whole-ballot methods — STAR, STAR-PR (1 seat), Approval (approve top two), Ranked Robin — elect Casey. First-choice methods — RCV-IRV, STV (1 seat), Choose-One — eliminate Casey first and, because the poles are a mirror image, deadlock Avery vs Blake in an exact tie (random on BV, not freezable). See the overview page for all seven.
Live results: https://bettervoting.com/h93tm4/results Overview: bv2171_h93tm4_all_methods.md · Full 100-voter version: bv2172_bkwfjr_star.yaml (BV2172) · Original 4-method cut: ../symmetric_centrist_bv2170/
Ballots¶
Row 1 = candidate names; each later row is one voter's 0–5 scores (a N × prefix = N identical ballots).
Count:Avery,Blake,Casey
3:5,1,3 # Avery > Casey > Blake (left pole)
3:1,5,3 # Blake > Casey > Avery (right pole)
1:3,1,5 # Casey > Avery > Blake (centrist, leans left)
1:1,3,5 # Casey > Blake > Avery (centrist, leans right)
What the engine says¶
The count, step by step — the rounds and how the winner is reached:
[Divergence from STAR]
STAR = Casey
Choose-One (Plurality) = Avery (differs from STAR)
RCV-IRV = Avery (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/bv2171_h93tm4_star_RCV-IRV_tabulated.txt
--- STAR Voting Method (single winner) ---
[STAR Voting]
Tabulating 8 ballots.
Count × Avery,Blake,Casey
3 × 5, 1, 3
3 × 1, 5, 3
1 × 3, 1, 5
1 × 1, 3, 5
[STAR Voting: Scoring Round]
The two highest-scoring candidates advance to the next round.
Casey -- 28 -- First place
Avery -- 22 -- Tied for second place
Blake -- 22 -- Tied for second place
Casey advances, but there's a two-way tie for second.
[STAR Voting: Scoring Round: First tiebreaker]
The candidate preferred in the most head-to-head matchups advances.
Avery -- 4 -- Tied for second place
Blake -- 4 -- Tied for second place
Equal Support -- 0
There's still a two-way tie for second.
[STAR Voting: Scoring Round: Second tiebreaker]
The candidate with the most votes of score 5 advances.
Avery -- 3 -- Tied for second place
Blake -- 3 -- Tied for second place
There's still a two-way tie for second.
*** No official tie-breaking lot numbers were provided.
Ties are resolved using a fallback order: CSV column order.
Lot-number priority order: ['Avery', 'Blake', 'Casey']
[Tiebreaker: Lot Number Priority]
Tie among: ['Avery', 'Blake']
Resolved: ['Avery'] (selected by lot-number priority).
[Lot-decided tie — rare]
⚠ The ballots did not break this tie: the deterministic rungs
(pairwise / score, then five-star) all came back equal, so the
pre-published LOT order chose among the tied candidates — the
result here was set by lot, not by the votes. Usually the
"dead rung": no tied candidate held a score-5 vote (five-star
counts fives, not fours). Verify the tied candidates' 5-counts.
[STAR Voting: Automatic Runoff Round]
The candidate preferred in the most head-to-head matchups wins.
Casey -- 5 -- First place
Avery -- 3
Equal Support -- 0
Casey wins.
Runoff math:
8 ballots cast
− 0 Equal Support (no preference between the two finalists)
─
8 voters with a preference (majority = 5)
Casey 5 (62%) · Avery 3 (38%)
[STAR Voting: Winner — STAR Voting Method (single winner)]
Casey
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
Note: Avery and Blake tied at 22 in the Scoring Round, and the lot
rung (the ballots could not separate them) advanced Avery. The *
marks who advanced, not who scored highest.
| * Avery | Blake | * Casey |
-----------------------------------------------------
* Avery > | --- |4 - 0 - 4 |3 - 0 - 5 |
Blake > | 4 - 0 - 4 | --- |3 - 0 - 5 |
* Casey > | 5 - 0 - 3 |5 - 0 - 3 | --- |
[Condorcet Winner]
Condorcet Winner: Casey — matches the STAR winner
[Condorcet Loser]
No strict Condorcet loser; jointly weak Condorcet losers: Avery, Blake (winless — pairwise ties) — Avery elected by Choose-One (Plurality)!
[Score Distribution] (how many ballots gave each star rating)
Score
Candidate 5 4 3 2 1 0 | Total Avg
Avery 3 0 1 0 4 0 | 22 2.8
Blake 3 0 1 0 4 0 | 22 2.8
Casey 2 0 6 0 0 0 | 28 3.5
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/symmetric_centrist_all_methods/cases/bv2171_h93tm4_star.yaml
See also¶
- Methods disagree on this election — its entry in the divergence review ledger
- Center squeeze (topic hub)
- Condorcet efficiency (topic hub)
- Ties & tie-breaking (topic hub)
- Runoff reversal (worked set)
- Glossary · all cases by method
More cases in this set: bv2172_bkwfjr_star