Because if you have more than 2 on the ballot you're not assured of anyone getting a majority. Plurality, yes, but not a majority. Perhaps that is what you meant.

And look at it this way, if you've got 4 candidates (which sound like it could have been the case last year, without the restriction to 3 on the ballot), and you elect by plurality, you could end up electing someone with 26% of the vote. IOW ~75% wanted someone else. Even with just 3 on the ballot you could end up electing someone that ~65% didn't support. We've got that possibility now, with the way the nominating and elections are set up. Would you be comfortable with that? I don't think I am.

Break

I just came back from looking up the results from last year. With 3 on the ballot DM won with 47% of the votes cast.

Now, we could get into a discussion of whether the three on the ballot were the most qualified/capable of the four (or more nominated), but that's really not what I want to have this thread develop into.