**STAR** has two big problems:

- In cases like this

Red 55%: A[5] B[4] C[0]

Blue 45%: A[0] B[4] C[5]

Makes A win instead of B. - If the candidate with the highest sum has a clone, the method becomes equivalent to the SV.

Example:

If there are “far right” A, “center” B, “far left” C, each of which proposes at least 2 strong candidates, even if my real interests are these:

A1 [10] A2 [5] B1 [2] B2 [1] C1 [0] C2 [0]

in STAR I would definitely vote like this:

A1 [10] A2 [10]…

or like this:

A1 [10] A2 [9]…

If the supporters of B and C do the same thing, you get an SV (even if the system is STAR).

**STARRV** with range [0,5]:

- found the candidate with the highest sum of points (eg
**A**), who will be the first finalist. -
**A**is removed from the votes and the score of each candidate, for each vote, is multiplied by the following value: 1 / (1 + sA / 5).

sA = score that candidate A has in the vote.

5 = maximum score of the range [0,5]

*This step removes the clone problem.* - found the candidate with the highest sum (eg B), who will be the second finalist.
- Runoff: considering the original votes, the score of the best candidate between A and B is set to 5 (leaving the score of the other unchanged).

*This makes the method more utilitarian, avoiding the problem 1) indicated at the beginning.* - The candidate between A and B with the highest sum wins.

**STARV** (edit)

It’s STARRV where the Runoff takes place as in STAR: 1 point to the best of the 2 finalists, for each vote, and highest sum win.