You can see it at my Codepen here (the method is called “SuperStar”… hey why not? ) https://codepen.io/karmatics/pen/eYJxXge

**Edit: it’s Cardinal Baldwin. I changed the name at the CodePen. Compared to both Score and STAR, I like it for its independence of irrelevant alternatives**

It should work identically to STAR if there are 3 candidates, but with more, instead of their being two rounds (score round and then runoff), there are *number of candidates minus one* rounds.

Each round eliminates the lowest scoring candidate, scales the ballots so that there is a 0 and a 5, then it runs the score tabulation again until there are only two candidates. Basically it does what STAR does in the final round for 2 candidates — maximizing each voter’s power – but in a gradual series.

In the Codepen is a scenario where it looks the image below, where left is liberal and right is conservative. **d**, **e** and **f** are in a tight race (all 3 close to the median crosshair), while **a**, **b** and **c** are too far left to be likely to win.

Say you’ve somewhere over ~800 ballots, with the the most left-leaning blocks of voters having these preferences:

134: a[5] b[4] c[2] d[1] e[0] f[0]

64: a[5] b[4] c[3] d[1] e[0] f[0]

94: a[3] b[5] c[4] d[1] e[0] f[0]

70: a[2] b[2] c[5] d[2] e[0] f[0]

None of these voters love **d**, but they’d sure rather her to **e** or **f**.

With the ballot set at the Codepen (which is generated from the same thing that produced the image), **d** is the Condorcet winner, and **d** wins under “SuperStar”. But **e** wins under Score and STAR (as well as STLR and Median). In the case of STAR, the reason **d** doesn’t win is because she didn’t even make it to the final round, so the benefits of STAR don’t come into play.

However, if at least some of those 4 blocks of voters got smart and exaggerated their preference for **d** by giving her a 5, **d** would make it into the final round under STAR, and subsequently win. That would make **d** win under Score as well. Presumably if those voters followed the polls, and understood the system, many of them would do that.

Obviously we don’t want that.

If those on the left got even smarter, they’d hold a party nomination and make sure that only one of the four candidates on the left is on the ballot. That kind of defeats the purpose of what we are doing here.

Please try the Codepen out and see how just exaggerating some the ratings for **d** in those top four rows causes **d** to win. (even though she is already wins under “SuperStar”, without anyone having to exaggerate)

Here’s the STAR and SuperStar results (prior to any lefty voters exaggerating):

****** Pairwise wins ******

**d: 5**

e: 4

c: 2

f: 2

a: 1

b: 1

****** Score ******

**e: 2178 (2.4390)**

f: 2108 (2.3606)

d: 2051 (2.2968)

c: 1883 (2.1086)

b: 1823 (2.0414)

a: 1748 (1.9574)

****** Interpolated Median ******

**e: 2.9415**

f: 2.6782

d: 2.5986

c: 1.9644

b: 1.4451

a: 1.3693

****** STAR ******

**e: 220**

f: 199

****** SuperStar ******

***** round 1 *****

e: 2.4390

f: 2.3606

d: 2.2968

c: 2.1086

b: 2.0414

a: 1.9574

***** round 2 *****

e: 2.4409

d: 2.2724

f: 2.2417

c: 2.1529

b: 2.0764

***** round 3 *****

e: 2.4420

c: 2.4188

d: 2.3322

f: 2.0852

***** round 4 *****

e: 2.7324

d: 2.5302

c: 2.4188

***** round 5 *****

**d: 2.2228**

e: 2.0325

****** STLR ******

**e: 2239.0000**

f: 2153.0000