[EM] FPTP is not strategy proof!!!

[Stephane Rouillon]

Markus Schulze a écrit :
<snip>

> A voter who uses "compromising" is still voting "sincerely -- not
> strategically." This voter is "just making a rational decision
> based on the deficiency of the voting system." "Plurality is therefore
> beyond manipulation."
>
> Markus Schulze
> ----
> Election-methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info

Markus,

I can accept that "A voter who uses "compromising" is still voting
"sincerely"...
However I disagree with the fact that voting sincerely is equivalent to voting

without strategy. In the same way, I consider "compromising"as some form of
lower
manipulation. I can agree with your statements if I use the definitions you
provide.
I simply find Mr. Russ Paielli definitions terminology as a deep misfit.

A system strategy-proof, IMHO, would collect the same ballot from a given
voter,
whatever the polls say. If not, what the voter puts on his/her ballot depends
on what the voter expects others to vote. Thus any such system can be
manipulated
by medias creating a fictional outcome.

In short: manipulability = ballot content dependent of other expected votes.
This definition would better fit my usual understanding of manipulation.

S. Rouillon
PS: IMHO, a more acceptable statement would be:
FTPT is beyond offensive manipulation to elect a voter's first choice.