Anti-Harassment Tools/SecurePoll Improvements/Test Results/20 9 496 604810680 reorder reverse

Comments
SecurePoll and OpenSTV disagree on elected candidates. This is due to how we deal with ties and arithmetic precision.

SecurePoll elects candidates 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8.

OpenSTV elects candidates 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 and 9. The exact outcome is somewhat determined by randomness. Until round ~107 OpenSTV reports candidate 9 as having the same number of votes as the other candidates. If candidate 9 is eliminated randomly before then, they will not win the election. If it does not, they will.

Candidate 9 is eliminated in round 3 by SecurePoll, in spite of the fact they "earned" 1.6776880458616138E-17 votes in that round. The precision of "earned" is greater than "total".

This is the same election as 20_9_496_604810680 but the order votes were cast was reversed. This leads to slight discrepancies in vote calculations. Compare round 3 for this election compared to 20_9_496_604810680. (see Precision#Order_of_operands)

Election setup

 * Candidates: 20
 * Seats: 9
 * Votes: 496

Actual results latest
Output from SecurePoll : /actual

Output from SecurePoll : https://github.com/dominic998/SecurePoll-Test-Data/blob/main/test_data/20_9_496_604810680_reorder_reverse.blt.php

SecurePoll tally page: You can tally your election at https://vote.wikimedia.beta.wmflabs.org/wiki/Special:SecurePoll/tally/1930

Expected
Output from OpenSTV: /expected

Files

 * blt: https://github.com/dominic998/SecurePoll-Test-Data/blob/main/test_data/20_9_496_604810680_reorder_reverse.blt

Environment

 * Where you tested: local docker and beta
 * Latest version of SecurePoll tested: 3.0.0 (3007c40) 06:36, 26 August 2021