<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body>
<font face="Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif">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. <br>
CJC<br>
</font><br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 09/09/2022 16:58, robert
bristow-johnson wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:157705591.1360020.1662739115892@privateemail.com">
<pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap="">
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap="">On 09/09/2022 11:34 AM EDT Forest Simmons <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:forest.simmons21@gmail.com"><forest.simmons21@gmail.com></a> 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.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap="">
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 . _ . _ . _ . _ <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:rbj@audioimagination.com">rbj@audioimagination.com</a>
"Imagination is more important than knowledge."
.
.
.
----
Election-Methods mailing list - see <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://electorama.com/em">https://electorama.com/em</a> for list info
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>