Not sure if Elijah has to be eliminated because once all seats are filled the election ends, similler issue as one raised by @imaigwilo here
https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Anti-Harassment_Tools/SecurePoll_Improvements/Test_Results/20_6_5100_1090197746 (no one is eliminated)

From the election admin perspective the result seems a little confusing. It's unclear what happened with Elijah unless they reads through the table. Maybe we can change the "Eliminated" to something like "Eliminated/Not elected" and include leftover candidates in it? Or we could make a new section for leftover candidates.
I'll ping @Prtksxna for his input.

In T287806#7251127, @Niharika wrote:

Maybe we can change the "Eliminated" to something like "Eliminated/Not elected" and include leftover candidates in it?

Yes, this makes sense. Lets change the heading and put all candidates who didn't get selected under it.

@Niharika fyi, I do have several ways to reproduce this issue. I can test it on my local box, once it is fixed.

Change 709580 had a related patch set uploaded (by STran; author: STran):

[mediawiki/extensions/SecurePoll@master] Append unelected candidates to the eliminated list

https://gerrit.wikimedia.org/r/709580

Change 709580 merged by jenkins-bot:

[mediawiki/extensions/SecurePoll@master] Append unelected candidates to the eliminated list

https://gerrit.wikimedia.org/r/709580

You should produce a ranked list of all candidates whether elected or eliminated, because some communities may want to determine some (say 2) reserved "winners" among the eliminated ones who may be called upon when needed (for example, if a genuine winner leaves Wikipedia or resigns)

@4nn1l2 we may need to give this more thought. In an election with 10 candidates, is it possible that candidate X get elected if only 5 winners are to be elected, but gets eliminated if 7 winners are to be elected? If such edge case can exist, then for a community who wants 5 winners and 2 backup reserves, would it make sense to set the bar at 7 and ask for a ranked list and pick the first 5 as winners? I assume the answer would be no, and the correct approach to be to set the bar at 5 (only actual winners) and use another mechanism to determine the 2 backup reserves; but I have no idea how.

@4nn1l2, @Huji - great points. Given we are pressed for time on this project right now, we probably won't be making that change at the moment. I do think it is worth further consideration. Do you mind filing a task for future?
Thanks.

fwiw the eliminated list is also ranked. It's only the unelected (seats all filled w/candidates remaining) candidates that get tossed into the back of that list. The edge case (which if you're referring to here sorry for retreading the ground) would be when multiple candidates are elected/eliminated at the same step. We don't distinguish those atm.

@Niharika I defer to @4nn1l2 as to how best to file the task.

Verified issue is resolved in my local host by re-tallying the elections that had missing Eliminated/Not elected and the issue is resolved. Eliminated/Not elected section loaded candidates accordingly. See sample screen shot.

@STran On another not I am seeing several poll result where the seat could not be filled. See attached screen below. I will need to find the pool files and add, wanted to send a quick fyi

@Niharika @STran @Huji, I filed the task. Please see T288185. Thanks