[EM] Markus & Manipulability

[Bart Ingles]

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