starvoting.org

STAR Voting's core claim is that the current voting system is "broken" because it forces voters to choose between voting their conscience and voting strategically, and that its two-round method—a score round followed by an automatic runoff—addresses that problem. According to starvoting.org, the system is designed so that votes are never wasted, elections "accurately reflect the will of the people," and majority-preferred winners are elected whenever possible. These are the site's stated goals and arguments, not independently verified outcomes; whether they hold depends on how the system performs in a given election.

The problems STAR Voting says it solves

The site frames the "broken" system around a few specific failures:

• Vote-splitting. When two similar candidates run, supporters of both can split their support and let a less-preferred candidate win. STAR Voting claims to prevent this and make it "safe to vote your conscience."
• Wasted votes and strategic voting. Under the current system, the site argues, voters are pushed to vote strategically rather than honestly. STAR Voting says strategic voting is not incentivized, so honesty becomes the best strategy.
• Unrepresentative outcomes. The site states that elections should "accurately reflect the will of the people" and that STAR Voting "levels the playing field, empowering disenfranchised voters."

How the mechanism is supposed to fix it

STAR stands for Score Then Automatic Runoff, and the site describes the process in two stages:

1. Scoring round. Voters score each candidate from 0 to 5 stars. You can give your favorite(s) five stars, give your last choice(s) zero or leave them blank, and give equal scores to multiple candidates.
2. Automatic runoff. The two highest-scoring candidates overall become finalists. In the runoff, it's "classic one person one vote"—your ballot already shows your preferences, so your full vote automatically goes to whichever finalist you scored higher.
3. Winner. The finalist with the most votes wins.

The design intent is that the scoring round lets you express honest preferences without fear of wasting your vote, while the runoff ensures the winner is preferred by a majority of voters over the other finalist.

The evidence the site cites

Starvoting.org states that STAR Voting is "vetted and peer-reviewed, topping the charts in all studies of accuracy and representativeness," and that it is "endorsed by organizations and leaders throughout Oregon." These are the site's own claims; the page does not list the specific studies or endorsing organizations, so anyone weighing the argument should check the linked research and endorsement pages directly rather than take the summary at face value.

What this means for you

If you're evaluating STAR Voting as a reform proposal, the site's case rests on three testable promises: no vote-splitting, no wasted votes, and majority-preferred winners. The mechanism (score, then runoff) is the part you can verify from the description above. The claims about peer-reviewed accuracy and endorsements are the part you'd want to confirm through the site's own research and endorsement materials before treating them as settled.

STAR Voting works in two stages: voters score every candidate from 0 to 5 stars, then the two highest-scoring candidates advance to an automatic runoff where each ballot counts as one full vote for whichever finalist that voter scored higher. The candidate who wins that runoff wins the election. You can use this two-step process to understand any STAR election, whether it's a single-winner race or a multi-winner contest.

Step 1: Scoring your ballot

On a STAR ballot, you rate each candidate on a 0–5 star scale:

• 5 stars — your favorite candidate(s)
• 0 stars or blank — your last choice(s)
• Any score in between — everyone else, as you see fit
• Equal scores are allowed — you can give multiple candidates the same number of stars

The key difference from a traditional plurality vote is that you're not limited to one choice. You can fully support your favorite without worrying that doing so "wastes" your vote, because your ballot still carries weight in the second round.

Step 2: The scoring round

All ballots are tallied by total stars. The two candidates with the highest overall scores become finalists.

This is where STAR gets its name — it's Score Then Automatic Runoff. The scoring round narrows the field to two, but it doesn't decide the winner on its own.

Step 3: The automatic runoff

The runoff is a classic one-person, one-vote comparison between the two finalists. Here's the mechanism:

• Your ballot already shows which finalist you preferred (based on the scores you gave them).
• Your full vote automatically goes to the finalist you scored higher.
• You don't mark anything extra — the runoff is calculated from your original scores.

If you gave both finalists the same score, that ballot is typically treated as no preference between them.

Step 4: Determining the winner

The finalist with the most votes in the runoff wins. Because the runoff is majority-based, STAR tends to elect the candidate preferred by a majority of voters whenever possible — not just the one with the most first-choice support.

Quick reference

Why the two rounds matter

The scoring round lets you express honest preferences across the whole field, while the runoff ensures the winner has broad support rather than just concentrated support. According to starvoting.org, this design prevents vote-splitting, makes it safe to vote your conscience, and levels the playing field for voters who might otherwise feel disenfranchised.

How this differs from Ranked Choice Voting

STAR Voting and Ranked Choice Voting (RCV) both aim to reduce wasted votes, but they work differently:

• RCV asks you to rank candidates, then eliminates last-place candidates round by round until someone has a majority.
• STAR asks you to score candidates, then uses a single automatic runoff between the top two.

The practical difference: in STAR, your scores carry through to the runoff automatically, and you can give equal scores — something ranking doesn't allow.

What to check before your next STAR election

• Confirm whether the race is single-winner or multi-winner — the counting rules differ.
• Read the official voter guide for your specific election, since ballot instructions can vary.
• Remember that blank or 0-star scores still count as your lowest preference in the runoff.

For the full official explanation, videos, and case studies, see the resources at starvoting.org.

STAR Voting's website (starvoting.org) offers two distinct paths depending on your goal: if you want to run an election using the STAR method, the site points you to a "Host Election" section and a scheduling tool called BetterVoting; if you want to advance voting reform more broadly, it provides campaign resources, legislative templates, local chapters, and volunteer sign-ups. The site also publishes case studies, technical specifications, and auditing materials for anyone who needs to verify or evaluate the method before committing.

Hosting an election with STAR Voting

The site's "Host Election" area is the starting point for organizations, campaigns, or groups that want to run a STAR election themselves. According to the site, hosting options include working with BetterVoting for scheduling and election administration.

Before you host, it helps to understand what you're asking voters to do, because STAR's ballot design is the part most people haven't seen before.

What voters actually do

1. Score every candidate from 0 to 5 stars. Give your favorite(s) five stars; give your last choice(s) zero or leave them blank. Equal scores across candidates are allowed.
2. Scoring round: the two highest-scoring candidates overall become finalists.
3. Automatic runoff: the runoff is a classic one-person, one-vote comparison between those two finalists. Your ballot already records your preference, so your full vote goes to whichever finalist you scored higher.
4. Winner: the finalist with the most votes in the runoff wins.

The key mechanic to explain to voters is that they never have to choose between "voting their conscience" and "voting strategically" — the runoff handles that automatically from the scores they already gave.

Practical steps

• Go to the Host Election section of starvoting.org to see the hosting options and the BetterVoting scheduling path.
• Review the Case Studies and Technical Specifications pages if you need to justify the method to a board, committee, or membership.
• Check the Auditing and Risk Limiting Audits materials if your election requires a post-election verification process.
• Look at the Cost Analysis page if budget approval is part of your decision.

The site does not publish pricing for hosting or for BetterVoting on the pages summarized here, so treat cost as something to confirm directly rather than assume is free.

Getting involved in the reform campaign

If your interest is advocacy rather than running a single election, the site organizes participation into several concrete tracks:

The site also maintains a Shop, a Blog, Articles, Videos, Podcasts, and Press section, plus a FAQ — useful if you need ready-made explanations before talking to a group.

Why the site frames this as fixing a broken system

The homepage's central claim is that the current system forces voters to choose between conscience and strategy, and that STAR addresses this by making vote-splitting safe and electing majority-preferred winners "whenever possible." It also states STAR is "vetted and peer-reviewed, topping the charts in all studies of accuracy and representativeness," and that it is endorsed by organizations and leaders throughout Oregon. Those are the site's own claims — if you're presenting STAR to a decision-making body, the Technical Specifications and Case Studies pages are where you'd go to check the supporting detail rather than repeating the summary language.

A note on Ranked Choice Voting

The site explicitly addresses how STAR differs from Ranked Choice Voting in a dedicated section. If your organization is already considering RCV, read that comparison before deciding, since the two methods produce different ballots and different counting behavior — the distinction matters for both voter education and any software or auditing setup you'd need.

Where to start

• Running an election: Host Election section → BetterVoting scheduling → review Case Studies and Technical Specifications.
• Advocating for reform: Campaigns or Launch an Initiative → Chapters → Volunteer sign-up.
• Evaluating the method: FAQ, Technical Specifications, Auditing, and Cost Analysis.
• Supporting the effort: Donate to the Equal Vote Coalition 501c3 or the STAR Action Fund.

STAR Voting is a voting method whose name stands for Score Then Automatic Runoff. The starvoting.org website is the online home of the Equal Vote Coalition, a 501(c)(3) nonprofit, and it serves three main purposes: explaining how STAR Voting works, advocating for its adoption, and helping organizations and campaigns actually run elections with it. If you want to understand the method, find campaign or legislative resources, or host an election using STAR, this site is the starting point.

How STAR Voting works

The site describes the method in two stages, which is where the name comes from.

Scoring round. Voters rate each candidate from 0 up to 5 stars. You give your favorite candidate(s) five stars and your last choice(s) zero or leave them blank. Equal scores are allowed, and you score the remaining candidates however you like.

Automatic runoff. The two highest-scoring candidates overall become finalists. The runoff is then a classic one-person, one-vote contest: your ballot already shows which finalist you prefer, and your full vote automatically goes to that finalist.

Winner. The finalist with the most votes in the runoff wins.

The site frames the appeal of this design around three ideas: it prevents vote-splitting and makes it "safe to vote your conscience," it aims for one person, one vote by electing majority-preferred winners whenever possible, and it claims to be vetted and peer-reviewed, topping studies of accuracy and representativeness.

What the website offers

The site is organized around several functions rather than being a single explainer page.

There is also a Spanish-language section ("Votación Estrella") and donation links supporting the Equal Vote Coalition's "STAR Voting Implementation Fund."

The core idea behind the site

The site's stated premise is that "our voting system is broken, but it doesn't have to stay that way." It argues that voting reform is a "keystone" cause — one change that could make advocates more effective on every other issue. Its stated goals are that people should be able to vote their conscience, that votes should never be wasted, and that elections should accurately reflect the will of the people.

How it differs from Ranked Choice Voting

The site explicitly addresses this comparison as one of its main headings. The key structural difference is the two-stage design: STAR uses a scored round to narrow the field to two finalists, then resolves the result with a simple majority runoff, rather than relying on ranked ballots and elimination rounds throughout.

Who this site is for

• Voters and curious readers who want a plain explanation of the method and a voter's guide.
• Organizers and activists looking for campaign templates, endorsement lists, chapter-starting guidance, or an initiative launch guide.
• Election administrators and organizations that want to host an election with STAR, including technical specs, auditing guidance, and cost analysis.

Note that the site does not publish pricing for its election-hosting or other services in the material available here, so costs should be confirmed directly through the Host Election section rather than assumed.

STAR Voting and Ranked Choice Voting (RCV) differ in two fundamental ways: how voters mark their ballots and how those ballots are counted. STAR asks voters to score candidates from 0 to 5 stars, then uses a two-step count — a scoring round to find two finalists, followed by an automatic runoff. RCV asks voters to rank candidates in order of preference, then eliminates the lowest-ranked candidates round by round until someone has a majority. If you want a system that lets you express how much you like each candidate and never requires you to abandon your favorite, STAR is the more expressive option. If you want a system already used in many U.S. cities and states, RCV has the longer track record.

How the ballots differ

With STAR, giving your favorite five stars and your least favorite zero is the recommended approach, and you can give multiple candidates the same score. With RCV, you order candidates, and your ballot transfers to your next choice only when your current choice is eliminated.

How the counting differs

STAR Voting works in two stages, as described on starvoting.org:

1. Scoring round — All ballots are tallied by score. The two candidates with the highest total scores become finalists.
2. Automatic runoff — Every ballot is then applied to the two finalists. Your vote automatically goes to whichever finalist you scored higher. The finalist with the most votes wins.

Ranked Choice Voting works by elimination:

1. Count first-choice votes.
2. If no candidate has a majority, eliminate the last-place candidate.
3. Transfer those ballots to the next ranked choice.
4. Repeat until a candidate has a majority.

The key mechanical difference: STAR always compares the final two head-to-head using every voter's preference between them. RCV can eliminate a broadly acceptable candidate early because they weren't enough voters' first choice, even if they would have beaten the eventual winner head-to-head.

Strategic voting and vote-splitting

starvoting.org states that STAR Voting "prevents vote-splitting and makes it safe to vote your conscience," and that "strategic voting is not incentivized." Because you can give your favorite five stars without hurting your second choice — and your runoff vote goes to whichever finalist you prefer — there's no penalty for honestly supporting a less popular candidate.

RCV reduces the "spoiler" problem compared to plurality voting, but it can still create incentives to rank a compromise candidate first if you fear your true favorite will be eliminated and your ballot won't transfer usefully. This is sometimes called a "push-over" or compromise-ranking dynamic.

Representation and accuracy claims

The starvoting.org site claims STAR is "vetted and peer-reviewed, topping the charts in all studies of accuracy and representativeness," and that it "elects majority-preferred winners whenever possible." These are the organization's characterizations of the research, not neutral findings — treat them as the advocacy position of the Equal Vote Coalition, which runs the site.

RCV, by contrast, has been adopted in jurisdictions including Maine and New York City, giving it a real-world track record that STAR largely lacks at the governmental level. That track record cuts both ways: it demonstrates feasibility, but it has also surfaced implementation issues (longer counts, ballot exhaustion) that STAR's simpler two-round structure is designed to avoid.

Which should you prefer?

• Choose STAR if you want voters to express intensity of preference, you want a system where voting your honest favorite is never punished, and you're persuaded by the accuracy research the site cites.
• Choose RCV if you value an existing track record in real elections, simpler ballot instructions for voters accustomed to ranking, and broader institutional familiarity.
• Either way, both are major departures from plurality voting and both address the spoiler problem — the choice comes down to whether you prioritize scoring expressiveness (STAR) or established use (RCV).

For the full mechanics and the organization's own comparison, see the "How is this different from Ranked Choice Voting?" section and FAQ on starvoting.org.