fsimmons at pcc.edu
Mon Jul 28 12:07:02 PDT 2003
On Thu, 24 Jul 2003, Alex Small wrote:
> Markus Schulze said:
> >> I'm surprised to read this. I thought "simple strategy" was a
> >> virtue for an electoral method. Surely runtime isn't considered a
> >> serious issue for summable methods...?
> > No! It is a desirable property that there is no simple way to
> > manipulate the result of the elections.
> That depends on what you think of insincere voting.
> I don't see anything wrong when people vote in whatever way they think
> will best advance/protect their interests. That's sort of what a public
> election is all about. Seen in that light, manipulation should be simple
> when it is possible. There should be a simple cause-effect relationship
> between what a person marks on his/her ballot and what the outcome is. It
> shouldn't be too complicated to determine whether sincere voting is the
> best way to go.
> Finally, I don't like using the word "manipulate" to describe strategic
> voting. The negative connotations of "manipulate" generally involve
> outside forces deceiving people to achieve a certain end. A bogus poll
> that tricks people into picking a particular strategy is manipulation.
> But looking at accurate information and deciding to support a compromise
> candidate is no different from politicians forming coalitions to advance a
> certain cause, or two sides compromising so an issue can be resolved.
Also, an "expert" giving out bad strategy advice is a dangerous form of
manipulation that is less likely to succeed if true strategy
considerations are transparent.
More information about the Election-Methods