[EM] Defeat Strength

[Colin Champion]

I think I agree with Forest. It may be pragmatically wise to treat 
unranked candidates as if they were equal last, but you can't force 
voters to provide a meaningful ranking for candidates they don't know 
much about, and might actually like if they knew more. Hence if 
truncation is common, ranked voting methods won't perform as well as 
you'd expect from theory.
    CJC

On 09/09/2022 16:58, robert bristow-johnson wrote:
>
>> On 09/09/2022 11:34 AM EDT Forest Simmons <forest.simmons21 at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>> As I understand it, the custom of treating truncation/abstention the same as equal last rank is a practical expedient to ward off dark horse upsets.
>>
> But it's also just equivalent to the meaning of the ballot in a Hare RCV (or "IRV") election.  Any unranked candidate is treated exactly as if they were ranked at the bottom level in the single transferable vote model.  I would not like to see that meaning changed with an RCV election decided with different rules.  In other words, I would not want to see the meaning of an unranked candidate to be changed so that somehow the unranked candidate is seen as preferred over any ranked candidate.
>
> --
>
> r b-j . _ . _ . _ . _ rbj at audioimagination.com
>
> "Imagination is more important than knowledge."
>
> .
> .
> .
> ----
> Election-Methods mailing list - see https://electorama.com/em for list info

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.electorama.com/pipermail/election-methods-electorama.com/attachments/20220909/38fd7113/attachment.htm>