There's nothing wrong with an option, and that goes for the 1/2 option. Well the only problem with adding options is that it makes the rule that much more complicated. Not a problem for elections here, but probably a problem for public proposals. When Blake brought up insincere extension, he correctly described it as an offensive strategy. If you defensively truncate in order to give zero votes-against among some lower preferences, that's a defensive strategy. And so that's one reason why, if the option isn't included, for the sake of simplicity, the default should be zero. Another reason why the default should be zero is that the voter, when not expressing preference between two alternatives, is literally not voting either over the other, and that should be reflected in the default interpretation of his vote. Also, suppose we were using Condorcet on this list to vote on something of importance. Would you want the 1/2 default even though it would mean that truncation would then be able to take victory from a CW? Wouldn't you prefer a count that allows for the reality of truncation without it making a problem? Wouldn't you agree that for an election on EM, or a public election, it's desirable to elect the CW? Mike
