Would it be politically beneficial to invalidate ballots that approve all candidates?

An attack I once heard on Approval voting (from a state legislative hearing, maybe Colorado) is that some voters could get confused and potentially approve every candidate. To avoid this, would it be worth it to invalidate such ballots, and make clear in the directions that a voter may approve only up to all but one of the candidates?

Though, an argument could be made that voters should have the right to approve all (non-write-in) candidates so as to prevent write-in candidates from winning.

Some voters will get confused and vote for Donald Duck. I’m not impressed by that argument. Run actual approval ballots past actual average americans and I bet 95% or more will basically be okay. I’d say 99% but I am a little bit cynical.

It would be dishonest to invalidate such ballots for the purpose of making the system look better. However, I wouldn’t expect full combinations to be reported anyway (just approval count), so how would they tell?

We will have numbers after Fargo. There is no argument as good as empirical evidence

1 Like

I don’t think this would be worth it. The big advantage that approval has is its simplicity. I don’t see how adding this complication could be worth the complexity cost.

1 Like

Technically, the same attack could be made on Score and STAR when a voter max-scores every candidate, though I doubt it would be as likely.