Symmetric centrist (47/47/3/3) — STAR: elects Casey, the Condorcet winner¶
Generated from bv2170_pp2q4q_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 pp2q4q · test BV2170).
Official tie-break (lot) order: Blake > Casey > Avery — consulted only if every deterministic tiebreaker stays tied (how the ladder works).
Scenario¶
One of four races in the Symmetric Centrist election (BV2170, bvid pp2q4q; BV-confirmed). 100 voters, three candidates, ONE electorate tabulated four ways. Avery is the left pole, Blake the right pole, Casey the broadly-liked centrist. 47 rank Avery>Casey>Blake, 47 rank Blake>Casey>Avery, and 6 put Casey first (3 leaning each way). Casey is the Condorcet winner — a majority prefers Casey to Avery (53–47) and to Blake (53–47) — yet holds only 6 first choices. Ranks mapped to 0–5 scores (top=5, mid=3, bottom=1): Casey tops the score round 312 (Avery and Blake tie at 294) and wins the automatic runoff 53–47 → STAR → Casey, matching Ranked Robin, unlike IRV and Choose-One (which throw the centrist out first and then deadlock the two poles).
Live results: https://bettervoting.com/pp2q4q/results Companion races: bv2170_pp2q4q_irv.yaml, bv2170_pp2q4q_ranked_robin.yaml, bv2170_pp2q4q_plurality.yaml. Overview page: bv2170_pp2q4q_symmetric_centrist.md
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
47:5,1,3 # Avery > Casey > Blake (left pole)
47:1,5,3 # Blake > Casey > Avery (right pole)
3:3,1,5 # Casey > Avery > Blake (centrist, leans left)
3:1,3,5 # 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) = Blake (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/bv2170_pp2q4q_star_RCV-IRV_tabulated.txt
--- STAR Voting Method (single winner) ---
[STAR Voting]
Tabulating 100 ballots.
Count × Avery,Blake,Casey
47 × 5, 1, 3
47 × 1, 5, 3
3 × 3, 1, 5
3 × 1, 3, 5
[STAR Voting: Scoring Round]
The two highest-scoring candidates advance to the next round.
Casey -- 312 -- First place
Avery -- 294 -- Tied for second place
Blake -- 294 -- 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 -- 50 -- Tied for second place
Blake -- 50 -- 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 -- 47 -- Tied for second place
Blake -- 47 -- Tied for second place
There's still a two-way tie for second.
*(Ties are resolved by choosing the tied candidate with the highest-priority official lot number.)*
Lot-number priority order: ['Blake', 'Casey', 'Avery']
[Tiebreaker: Lot Number Priority]
Tie among: ['Avery', 'Blake']
Resolved: ['Blake'] (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 -- 53 -- First place
Blake -- 47
Equal Support -- 0
Casey wins.
Runoff math:
100 ballots cast
− 0 Equal Support (no preference between the two finalists)
───
100 voters with a preference (majority = 51)
Casey 53 (53%) · Blake 47 (47%)
[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 294 in the Scoring Round, and the lot
rung (the ballots could not separate them) advanced Blake. The *
marks who advanced, not who scored highest.
| Avery | * Blake | * Casey |
-------------------------------------------------------------
Avery > | --- |50 - 0 - 50 |47 - 0 - 53 |
* Blake > | 50 - 0 - 50 | --- |47 - 0 - 53 |
* Casey > | 53 - 0 - 47 |53 - 0 - 47 | --- |
[Condorcet Winner]
Condorcet Winner: Casey — matches the STAR winner
[Condorcet Loser]
No strict Condorcet loser; jointly weak Condorcet losers: Avery, Blake (winless — pairwise ties) — Blake 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 47 0 3 0 50 0 | 294 2.9
Blake 47 0 3 0 50 0 | 294 2.9
Casey 6 0 94 0 0 0 | 312 3.1
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_bv2170/cases/bv2170_pp2q4q_star.yaml
See also¶
- Condorcet efficiency (topic hub)
- Ties & tie-breaking (topic hub)
- Runoff reversal (worked set)
- Glossary · all cases by method
More cases in this set: bv2170_pp2q4q_irv · bv2170_pp2q4q_plurality · bv2170_pp2q4q_ranked_robin