[EM] Why the concept of "sincere" votes in Range is flawed.

[Jonathan Lundell]

On Jan 26, 2009, at 3:43 AM, James Gilmour wrote:

> Jonathan Lundell  > Sent: Monday, January 26, 2009 12:02 AM
>> I'm not making a particularly important point here, only that if a
>> voter can pick a favorite (as required for plurality), then a voter
>> can build an ordered list.
>
> I know it is straying from single-office single-winner elections in  
> which this discussion arose, but I suspect not even one voter
> marked a preference for all 450 candidates who stood in a 120-place  
> STV-PR election some years ago.  (It was the first election for
> a statutory regulatory medical council - doctors or nurses, I forget  
> which.  Thereafter, the UK was divided into four territorial
> electoral districts, so the numbers of seats in each were smaller  
> and the numbers of candidates also smaller.)  My point is that
> there comes a point when we will genuinely have no further  
> preferences because we have no sensible basis on which to discriminate
> among the remaining candidates.  Where that break point occurs will  
> differ among voters  -  and that should be the voter's
> individual choice.

Just for the record, we don't disagree here.