  Multi-winner approval elections are seen in a variety of settings ranging
from academic societies and associations to public elections. In such
elections, it is often the case that ballot-length restrictions are enforced;
that is, where voters have a limit on the number of candidates which they can
vote for. Despite this common feature, there does not seem to be any
theoretical justification for ballot-length restrictions (Laslier and Van der
Straeten, 2016).
  This work endogenously derives the set of voter best-response ballot lengths
under complete information and with general assumptions on voter utilities and
voting rules. These results provide justification for some ballot-length
restrictions observed in practice, however when considering equilibrium
outcomes our analysis shows that this justification is no longer valid.
Equilibrium analysis is considered for voters with lazy and truth-bias
second-order tendencies and the equilibrium solution concept is pure-Nash
equilibria.
  The key insights show that ballot-length restrictions or institutional
features which make voting costly may lead to instability in election outcomes
when voters have diverse preferences, via the non-existence of equilibria. On
the other hand, when equilibria do exist they satisfy desirable properties
which are not guaranteed by equilibria attained under costless voting and in
the absence of ballot-length restrictions. In summary our results highlight a
stark trade-off between stable and desirable election outcomes.
