Blake Cretney wrote: > > If some people are able to get more influence by a greater > understanding of the method, or better guesses about how other's are > voting, I say that is a bad thing, although to some extent inevitable. > Some people would say that the better informed have a right to whatever > greater influence they can get, and it would be wrong to frustrate this > natural process. Others would argue that the only important thing is > that the "right" candidate wins (possibly the sincere Condorcet winner), > so strategy is only good or bad in so far as it helps or frustrates that > goal.
Just to toss in my two cents, I would also want to consider how specialized & detailed the knowledge required (for polling data as well as for possible strategies). Using Nurmi's definition of manipulability, "non-manipulable" seems to mean that a group with sufficient resources could gain an advantage by exploiting strategies which are beyond the reach of most voters. In contrast, a "manipulable" method with a simple, intuitive strategy might present a relatively level playing field to anyone with access to a newspaper or radio. Bart
