[EM] Influence of a single vote (was Voting strategy etc.)

[Michael Allan]

Dave Ketchum wrote:
> It matters for most, if not all, methods, including Plurality.  
> Individually voters can rarely do anything, collectively they are the 
> result producers - without any necessity for contact amongst themselves.

Like magic?  I agree that (a) the result is a collective of votes, but
I disagree that (b) the electorate is a collective of voters.  I also
disagree that they (whatever we call them) produce the result in any
deliberate or positive sense.

(a) The result is obviously the sum of the votes, gathered together
for this purpose, and tallied up.  In that sense, the result is a
collective.  OK.

(b) But the voters themselves do not gather together for mutual
discussions concerning the election.  As you say, there is generally
no contact among them.  Therefore they are not a collective and are
not likely to act as one.  Each voter acts as an isolated, private
individual.

Given (a) and (b) it is incorrect and misleading to state that any
collective "they" is the producer of the result.  If a result is
produced, then the producer cannot be seen from within the horizon of
the voting system.  To see the producer, we must join the perspective
of those who would work their influence upon the system from the
outside, feeding information to the information hungry voters.  From
this perspective, a collective does emerge, but it emerges as a
passive, more-or-less manipulated mass.^[1]

By contrast, and assuming an ideal design, the electoral result of a
public voting system is always a production of the public itself.  The
only difference here between a mass and a public, between passivity
and assertiveness, is a voting system.  No?

[1] In one important sense, I overstate the argument.  The mass of
    private voters is not always a passive instrument.  It will not
    allow the worst excesses of government to be foisted upon it, for
    example.

-- 
Michael Allan

Toronto, 647-436-4521
http://zelea.com/