Why truncation resistance is important (RE: [EM] Re: Rob: MDDA vsBeatpathWinner)

[James Gilmour]

> ] On Behalf Of Rob Lanphier Sent: Sunday, October 09, 2005 8:08 AM
> Here's the problem with that philosophy.  Let's say there are 
> three credible front-runners: "mediocre", "bad" and "worse".  
> I would hope many voters would like to be able to express 
> both that "bad" and "worse" are unacceptable, while also 
> expressing their preference of "bad" to "worse".

If there are three credible front-runners, it is likely that the overwhelming majority of voters will rank them (always
assuming the vote counting rules do not give them an incentive to do otherwise).

With regard to the other candidates, ie those generally recognised not to be among the front-runners, a voter who does
not mark a preference for any of them is saying: "These candidates are all below my marked preferences, but if the
winner has to be chosen from among them, I am happy to leave that decision to the other voters".  Nothing more should be
imputed to a truncated ballot.

It is none of my business, nor is it anyone else's business, why any voters made the decision to truncate when they
could have gone on to mark more or all preferences.

James Gilmour