[EM] Truncation not allowed (was Re[2]: Hey guys, look at this...)

[Bob Richard (lists)]

I disagree with Toby here, at least under some circumstances. But I'm 
speaking as a voter, not as a student of social choice theory. To me as 
a voter, there can be a huge difference between ranking a candidate last 
and leaving that candidate unranked.  To put it simply, under some 
voting rules there will always be candidates that I am unwilling to vote 
for, even in last place.

This depends on the voting rule. If the rule makes it impossible for my 
last place ranking to ever help the candidate(s) I oppose, and if I can 
rank multiple candidates equal bottom, then I am willing to assign a 
rank to every candidate when truncation is not allowed. But if the rule 
leaves open the possibility that my last place ranking will end up 
helping a candidate I oppose get elected, then I would be obligated, as 
a matter of conscience, to abstain from voting at all. This can happen, 
for example, in IRV when truncation is not allowed.

If I were Australian, I would end up paying the fine for not voting 
after every election.

--Bob Richard

------ Original Message ------
>From "Toby Pereira" <tdp201b at yahoo.co.uk>
To "Colin Champion" <colin.champion at routemaster.app>; "Forest Simmons" 
<forest.simmons21 at gmail.com>
Cc "EM" <election-methods at lists.electorama.com>
Date 2/20/2023 3:14:01 AM
Subject Re: [EM] Hey guys, look at this...

>One thing I'm uncomfortable with is the notion of "unranked" 
>candidates. If there are 4 candidates - A, B, C and D - and one ballot 
>has A>B>C>D and another just A>B>C, they should be treated as the same. 
>Unranked is just (possibly joint) last and I don't see it as having 
>special status.
>
>Toby
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.electorama.com/pipermail/election-methods-electorama.com/attachments/20230221/43a105a6/attachment.htm>