Explain how not knowing whether someone will vote naively or strategically could make vote manipulation through agenda setting more difficult
What will be an ideal response?
If everyone's preferences are known and the people vote naively, an agenda setter knows exactly what the results of the vote will be. Knowing this, the agenda setter can possibly manipulate the election by setting the order of events to be voted on, assuming the election is sensitive to the order of events. If everyone's preferences are known but some or all people vote strategically, the agenda setter will not know with certainty what the results of the election will be. Being uncertain about the potential results makes it more difficult to manipulate the election by setting the order of events to be voted on.
You might also like to view...
Popular criticism of determining who gets what by means of money prices increases in periods of inflation because
A) inflation hits poor people the hardest. B) people mistakenly assume an increase in money prices makes them worse off. C) the wealthy will eventually acquire everything if inflation continues long enough. D) there is no one who benefits from rising prices.
By 2012, the dollar value of the debt:
A. past 100 percent of GDP. B. the lowest in the U.S. history. C. was reduced to $500 billion. D. back down to 40 percent of GDP.
An early piece of anti-trust legislation is the
A) Sherman Act. B) Mann Act. C) DIDMCA of 1980. D) Federal Reserve Act of 1913.
A trade surplus provides a measure of the gap between exports and imports
a. True b. False Indicate whether the statement is true or false