Ames 60 percent, one row per ballot: evidence account
In plain words
The count under Schulze elected Ames because Ames beats 1 of the other candidates on strongest beatpath, more than any other candidate.
No audit ran.
No container custody was supplied.
Outcome status: preliminary. Software tallies stay preliminary until an audit on the record confirms them or a full hand count of the record replaces them.
The contest
Title: Ames 60 percent, one row per ballot
Candidates: Ames, Baird.
Records in this count: 500.
Ballot file: comparison-cvrs
Source: Synthetic committed CVRs for the Lindeman and Stark 2012 comparison example (diluted margin 20%).
300 ballots mark Ames first, 200 mark Baird first. Each row is one physical ballot. Paper rankings are omitted, so they match the committed CVRs. This is a fixture, not a sealed container.
Where the records sat:
One stack of 500 records. There is no ballot manifest of sealed containers.
No container custody was supplied.
What was configured
Configuration version: comparison-cvrs-custody-gap-plurality-v1-under-schulze.
Configuration fingerprint (SHA-256): 19687e71f32674d82728b13faf41a0b3c49ea9cd96c01ba69bf9741c8d717b8f.
Counting rule: Schulze.
Ballot rules used: Two or more marks at one rank end the ballot there; 2 ranks in a row left blank end the ballot; a candidate marked again lower down counts as a rank left blank.
Ballot file: comparison-cvrs. A third party with this file can rerun the count.
Audit: none. No seed was used.
Configured audit risk limit: 10%.
Plain-language configuration (check against statute intent):
Configuration version: comparison-cvrs-custody-gap-plurality-v1-under-schulze
Fingerprint (SHA-256): 19687e71f32674d82728b13faf41a0b3c49ea9cd96c01ba69bf9741c8d717b8f
Election: Ames 60 percent, three boxes whose custody does not hold, counted under Schulze (beatpath)
A demonstration configuration over committed fixture records, counting the same ballots under another rule. No audit ran under it, and no real election was counted under it.
Contests and candidates:
Ames 60 percent, three boxes whose custody does not hold (comparison-cvrs): Ames; Baird.
Counting rule: Schulze (beatpath).
Tiebreak: not used under this counting rule.
Ballot rules (how marks become a ranking):
Two or more marks at one rank: the ballot counts up to that rank and no further.
A candidate marked again lower down: that rank counts as a rank left blank.
2 ranks in a row left blank: the ballot counts up to there and no further.
A mark for anyone not on the ballot: a mark, so the rank is not blank, but never a vote.
Audit risk limit: 10%. A risk-limiting audit that runs under this configuration stops when the sample confirms the outcome at that limit, or sends the contest to a full hand count.
How a ballot is counted and how an audit stops are fixed by this version. Changing any of the lines above requires a new version id.
The count
What follows is the counting account under Schulze, including every intermediate step.
What was counted
Ballots in this count: 500.
Ballots from: Synthetic committed CVRs for the Lindeman and Stark 2012 comparison example (diluted margin 20%).
300 ballots mark Ames first, 200 mark Baird first. Each row is one physical ballot. Paper rankings are omitted, so they match the committed CVRs. This is a fixture, not a sealed container.
How the marks on a ballot were read:
Two or more marks at one rank: the ballot counts up to that rank and no further.
A candidate marked again lower down: that rank counts as a rank left blank.
2 ranks in a row left blank: the ballot counts up to there and no further.
A mark for anyone not on the ballot: a mark, so the rank is not blank, but never a vote.
The rankings the ballots form, and how many ballots form each. A candidate a ranking does not name is ranked last on those ballots.
| Ranking | Ballots |
|---|---|
| Ames > Baird | 300 |
| Baird > Ames | 200 |
Head to head
Every candidate is set against every other. A ballot counts in a matchup when it ranks one of the two above the other. A candidate a ballot never ranks is ranked last on that ballot, tied with every other candidate it never ranks, so such a ballot has no preference between them.
| Matchup | Votes | Against | Votes | No preference | Wins |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Ames | 300 | Baird | 200 | 0 | Ames |
Schulze beatpaths
For every ordered pair, take the strongest chain of pairwise wins connecting them (the weakest link in a chain is its strength; the strongest such chain wins).
A candidate's score is how many opponents they beat on those strengths.
| Candidate | Beatpath wins |
|---|---|
| Ames | 1 |
| Baird | 0 |
Outcome
Beatpath wins: Ames 1; Baird 0.
Ames is elected under Schulze: more strongest beatpaths favor Ames than any other candidate.
Records with no mark, by contest and by machine
At the close of polls, the share of records with no mark in each contest, by contest and by machine. Leaving a contest blank is a voter's right; an outlier below is a question about the ballot or the machine, not a verdict.
| Contest | Records | With no mark | Share |
|---|---|---|---|
| comparison-cvrs | 500 | 0 | 0.00% |
The audit
No audit ran.
What was found
No audit ran, so there are no sample findings.
Custody: none supplied. No container custody chain was recorded or verified.
Why it stopped
Decision: no audit.
No audit ran.
Outcome status: preliminary. Software tallies stay preliminary until an audit on the record confirms them or a full hand count of the record replaces them.