awt logo

Tennessee example with STAR voting (Tennessee capitol)

πŸ”— TNexampleSTAR     (tags: { theoretical })

Below is the ABIF from the "TNexampleSTAR" election (Tennessee example with STAR voting (Tennessee capitol))

ABIF submission area (show)
Method options
Ballot options

Voting methods: FPTP β€’ approval β€’ IRV β€’ STAR β€’ Pairwise β€’ All methods

Results

πŸ”—https://abif.electorama.com/id/TNexampleSTAR

Below are the results of the election represented above using various election methods with abiftool/abiflib. The detected ballot type from the ABIF above is "rated". Some methods may transform these ballots for analysis; see method notices for details. Resubmit the ABIF with "Transform ballots" turned off to minimize the transformations.

Method Winner
FPTP Memphis, TN
Approval Nashville, TN
IRV/RCV Knoxville, TN
STAR Nashville, TN
Condorcet/Copeland Nashville, TN
Election results summary showing voting method winners
click/tap to expand
tabbed view

FPTP result

"FPTP" is "First-past-the-post", also known as "plurality" or "choose-one"
TNexampleSTAR FPTP results permalink:
πŸ”—https://abif.electorama.com/id/TNexampleSTAR/FPTP#FPTP
πŸ“
Note β€” FPTP run on ballot_type=rated

  • FPTP Winner: Memphis, TN with 42 first-place votes (42.0%)
  • Runner-up: Nashville, TN with 26 first-place votes (26.0%)
  • Margin of victory: 16 votes (16.0 percentage points)
  • First-place votes
    • Memphis, TN: 42 votes (42.0 %)
    • Nashville, TN: 26 votes (26.0 %)
    • Knoxville, TN: 17 votes (17.0 %)
    • Chattanooga, TN: 15 votes (15.0 %)
  • Total ballots: 100

Approval voting results

TNexampleSTAR approval voting results permalink:
πŸ”—https://abif.electorama.com/id/TNexampleSTAR/approval#approval
πŸ“
Note β€” Approval counts estimated from 100 rated ballots using favorite_viable_half method
Details

The 'favorite_viable_half' conversion algorithm: find the candidate with the most first preferences, and then determine the minimum number of figurative seats that would need to be open in order for the candidate to exceed the Hare quota with the given first-prefs. We use this to estimate how many candidates are likely to be viable candidates.

Using first-choice vote totals as a rough guide, approximately 3 candidates appear viable: Memphis, TN, Nashville, TN, and Knoxville, TN. The approximation then assumes each voter approves up to 2 of their top-ranked viable candidates (half of 3, rounded up). All candidates ranked at or above the lowest-ranked of each ballot's top viable candidates receive approval (considering up to 2 viable candidates per ballot).

See transformed ballots

Note: For Approval, these choose_many ballots are inferred from rated ballots.

Conversion method: favorite_viable_half

#------- metadata -------
{ballotcount: 100}
{title: "Tennessee capitol example"}
{description: "Hypothetical example of selecting capitol of Tennessee, frequently used on Wikipedia and electowiki.  This example uses theoretical STAR voting choices loosely based on distance between the cities."}
{min_rating: "0"}
{max_rating: "5"}
#------ candlines ------
=Memph:[Memphis, TN]
=Nash:[Nashville, TN]
=Chat:[Chattanooga, TN]
=Knox:[Knoxville, TN]
#------- votelines ------
42:Memph/1=Nash/1
26:Chat/1=Knox/1=Nash/1
17:Chat/1=Knox/1=Nash/1
15:Chat/1=Knox/1=Nash/1
  • Approval Winner: Nashville, TN
  • Approval Results:
    • Nashville, TN (Nash) — 100 approvals (100.0% of ballots) (βœ… winner)
    • Chattanooga, TN (Chat) — 58 approvals (58.0% of ballots)
    • Knoxville, TN (Knox) — 58 approvals (58.0% of ballots)
    • Memphis, TN (Memph) — 42 approvals (42.0% of ballots)
  • Total: 100 ballots (258 total approvals)

IRV/RCV results

TNexampleSTAR IRV/RCV result permalink:
πŸ”—https://abif.electorama.com/id/TNexampleSTAR/IRV#IRV

  • IRV/RCV Winner: Knoxville, TN with 58 votes (58.0%) in final round
  • Runner-up: Memphis, TN with 42 votes (42.0%) in final round
  • Exhausted ballots in final round: 0 (0.0%)
  • Number of rounds: 3
  • Ballots counted in final round: 100 (100.0%)
  • Majority of ballots: 51 (51.0%)
  • Total ballots: 100
Round 1 Round 2 Round 3
Overview:
Active ballots: 100 (100.0%)

Exhausted ballots: 0 (0.0%)
Counted ballots: 100 (100.0%)
Overview:
Active ballots: 100 (100.0%)

Exhausted ballots: 0 (0.0%)
Counted ballots: 100 (100.0%)
Overview:
Active ballots: 100 (100.0%)

Exhausted ballots: 0 (0.0%)
Counted ballots: 100 (100.0%)
Memphis, TN: 42 (42.0%)
β†’
Memphis, TN: 42 (42.0%)
β†’
Memphis, TN: 42 (42.0%) (πŸ›‘eliminated)
β†’
Nashville, TN: 26 (26.0%)
β†’
Nashville, TN: 26 (26.0%) (πŸ›‘eliminated)
β†’
Nashville, TN
Knoxville, TN: 17 (17.0%)
β†’
Knoxville, TN: 32 (32.0%)
β†’
IRV/RCV winner:
Knoxville, TN: 58 (58.0%)βœ…
β†’
Chattanooga, TN: 15 (15.0%) (πŸ›‘eliminated)
β†’
Chattanooga, TN Chattanooga, TN

STAR results

TNexampleSTAR STAR results permalink:
πŸ”—https://abif.electorama.com/id/TNexampleSTAR/STAR#STAR

  • STAR winner: Nashville, TN
  • Finalists: Nashville, TN vs Chattanooga, TN
  • Runoff result:
    • Nashville, TN: 68 votes (68.0%)
    • Chattanooga, TN: 32 votes (32.0%)
    • No preference: 0 voters (0.0%)
  • Total stars allocated: 899
  • Total ballots: 100
β˜…β˜…β˜…β˜…β˜…β˜…

β˜…β˜…β˜…β˜…β˜…

β˜…β˜…β˜…β˜…β˜…β˜…
β˜…β˜…β˜…β˜…β˜…
β˜…β˜…β˜…β˜…β˜…β˜…
β˜…β˜…β˜…β˜…β˜…
β˜…β˜…β˜…β˜…β˜…β˜…
β˜…β˜…β˜…β˜…β˜…
β˜…β˜…β˜…β˜…β˜…β˜…
(one star above is approximately 18 stars allocated by voters)
  • First round:
    • β˜…#0: Nashville, TN received 261 stars (29.0%) from 100 voters (100.0%)
    • β˜…#1: Chattanooga, TN received 246 stars (27.4%) from 100 voters (100.0%)
    • β˜…#2: Memphis, TN received 210 stars (23.4%) from 42 voters (42.0%)
    • β˜…#3: Knoxville, TN received 182 stars (20.2%) from 58 voters (58.0%)
  • Finalists:
    • β˜…Nashville, TN (βœ… winner) preferred by 68 of 100 voters
    • β˜…Chattanooga, TN preferred by 32 of 100 voters
    • β˜…No preference between the finalists: 0

Condorcet/Copeland results

TNexampleSTAR Condorcet/Copeland results permalink:
πŸ”—https://abif.electorama.com/id/TNexampleSTAR/pairwise#pairwise
  • Winner: Nashville, TN
  • Runner-up: Chattanooga, TN (beats all other candidates except Nashville, TN)
  • Smallest margin: Nashville, TN over Memphis, TN (58-42; margin: 16)
  • Largest margin: Chattanooga, TN over Knoxville, TN (83-17; margin: 66)
  • Pairwise ties: none
  • Total ballots: 100

Win-loss-tie (Condorcet/Copeland) table

TNexampleSTAR w-l-t table permalink:
πŸ”—https://abif.electorama.com/id/TNexampleSTAR/pairwise#wlt
Tennessee example with STAR voting (Tennessee capitol) pairwise matchups
Nashville, TN
(3-0-0)
Nashville, TN
3 victories ⇣
Chattanooga, TN
(2-1-0)
Nashville, TN: 68(68.0%)
Chattanooga, TN: 32(32.0%)
(No preference: 0; 0.0%)
Chattanooga, TN
⇽ 1 loss / 2 victories† ⇣
Knoxville, TN
(1-2-0)
Nashville, TN: 68(68.0%)
Knoxville, TN: 32(32.0%)
(No preference: 0; 0.0%)
Chattanooga, TN: 83(83.0%)
Knoxville, TN: 17(17.0%)
(No preference: 0; 0.0%)
Knoxville, TN
⇽ 2 losses / 1 victory† ⇣
Memphis, TN
(0-3-0)
Nashville, TN: 58(58.0%)
Memphis, TN: 42(42.0%)
(No preference: 0; 0.0%)
Chattanooga, TN: 58(58.0%)
Memphis, TN: 42(42.0%)
(No preference: 0; 0.0%)
Knoxville, TN: 58(58.0%)
Memphis, TN: 42(42.0%)
(No preference: 0; 0.0%)

Pairwise tournament (Copeland ordered)

TNexampleSTAR pairwise diagram permalink:
πŸ”—https://abif.electorama.com/id/TNexampleSTAR/pairwise#dot

%3 Nash Nash 3-0-0 (3 wins, 0 losses, 0 ties) Chat Chat 2-1-0 Nash->Chat ← Nash: 68 Chat: 32 Knox Knox 1-2-0 Nash->Knox ← Nash: 68 Knox: 32 Memph Memph 0-3-0 Nash->Memph ← Nash: 58 Memph: 42 Chat->Knox ← Chat: 83 Knox: 17 Chat->Memph ← Chat: 58 Memph: 42 Knox->Memph ← Knox: 58 Memph: 42

Voting methods: FPTP β€’ approval β€’ IRV β€’ STAR β€’ Pairwise β€’ All methods

(homepage)