[EM] the "meaning" of a vote (or lack thereof)

[Michael Allan]

Matt and Dave,

Matt Welland wrote:
> The meaning of an individual vote is mostly irrelevant and pointless
> to discuss. ...

The individual vote itself is irrelevant?  We know that the vote is
the formal expression of what a person thinks in regard to an
electoral issue.  Do you mean:

  (a) What the person thinks is irrelevant in reality?  Or,

  (b) What the person thinks is irrelevant to the election method?

> ... If a barge can carry 10 tons of sand then of course at any point
> in time while loading the barge no single grain of sand matters ...

(But an election is not a barge and a voter is not a grain of sand to
be shipped around in bulk, or otherwise manipulated.  A voter is a
person, and that makes all the difference.)

> ... but will *you* get on that barge for a 300 mile journey across
> lake Superior if it is loaded with 10.1 tons of sand?  Probably
> not. Votes in any election with millions of voters are like this,
> individually irrelevant, but very meaningful as an aggregate. If
> there are ten thousand people who share your values and will vote as
> you vote then together you have a shot at influencing the outcome of
> the election with 20 thousand voters.

The election method cannot tell you, "there are ten thousand people
who share your values and will vote as you vote".  The election method
exposes no vote dispositions until after the election.  By then it is
woefully late for any attempt at mutual understanding, or rational
reflection.

> > ... An individual's vote can have no useful effect on the outcome
> > of the election, or on anything else in the objective world.
> > Again it follows:
> >
> >  (a) What the individual voter thinks is of no importance; or
> >
> >  (b) The election method is flawed.
> >
> > Which of these statements is true?  I think it must be (b).
 
Dave Ketchum wrote:
> Agreed that a is not true though, as you point out, one voter,
> alone, changing a vote cannot be certain of changing the results.

To be sure, the point is stronger: the voter can be certain of having
no effect on the results whatsoever.
 
> I do not see you proving that b is true.  "Flawed" requires the
> method failing to provide the results it promises.

Well, an election method rarely makes explicit promises.  We can only
judge by people's expectations of it.  Your's for instance.  You had
the expectation that an individual voter might have some influence
over the outcome of the election, at least under certain conditions.
Maybe you still do?  (You gave examples, but I don't understand the
jargon.)

Warren Smith and Fred Gohlke had similar expectations.  Warren began
with the hope of attaching some meaning to an individual vote based on
its contribution to the outcome.  That turns out to be impossible
because the contribution is zero.  You, Warren and Fred are all
experts in one capacity or another, yet each of you had expectations
of the election method that it could not meet.  What about the
expectations of the voter?  Suppose we explained the alternatives to
her (or him):

 (a) What you think is of no importance; or

 (b) The election method is flawed.

She's going to pick (b).  She expects her vote to matter in some small
way.  She expects it to *possibly* make a difference.  These are
reasonable expectations, and I think any election method that fails to
meet them is flawed.  Further, the flaw is deep and extensive.  It may
be working to systematically distort the results, even to the point of
electing candidates who could not otherwise be elected.

-- 
Michael Allan

Toronto, +1 416-699-9528
http://zelea.com/


Dave Ketchum wrote:
> On Aug 27, 2011, at 9:23 PM, Michael Allan wrote:
> 
> > Dave Ketchum wrote:
> >> Conditions surrounding elections vary but, picking on a simple
> >> example, suppose that, without your vote, there are exactly nR and
> >> nD votes.  If that is the total vote you get to decide the election
> >> by creating a majority with your vote.
> >
> > What do nR and nD stand for?
> 
> ANY topic for which voters can choose among two goals.
> >
> >
> >> Or, suppose a count of nPoor, 1Fair, and nGood and thus Fair being  
> >> the
> >> median before you and a twin vote.
> >>
> >> If such twins vote Poor, that and total count go up by 2, median goes
> >> up by 1 and is now Poor.
> >>
> >> If such twins vote Good, that and total count go up by 2, median goes
> >> up by 1 and is now Good.
> >
> > This example speaks of two votes, but the rules grant me only one.  I
> > am interested in the effects of that vote, and any meaning we can
> > derive from them.  I say there is none.
> 
> Ok, so you vote alone.  To work with that, whenever median is not an  
> integer, subtract .5 to make it an integer.
> 
> >> If you vote Poor, that and total count go up by 1, median is  
> >> unchanged and is now Poor.
> >>
> >> If you vote Good, that and total count go up by 1, median is  
> >> unchanged and remains Fair.
> >
> >> Note that single voters get no useful power in an election for
> >> governor, but a majority voting together do have the power (by
> >> combining their votes) to decide the election.
> >
> > I believe that is true for all elections that are conducted by
> > conventional methods, regardless of the ballot used - Plurality,
> > Range, Condorcet or Approval.  An individual's vote can have no useful
> > effect on the outcome of the election, or on anything else in the
> > objective world.  Again it follows:
> >
> >  (a) What the individual voter thinks is of no importance; or
> >
> >  (b) The election method is flawed.
> >
> > Which of these statements is true?  I think it must be (b).
> 
> Agreed that a is not true though, as you point out, one voter, alone,  
> changing a vote cannot be certain of changing the results.
> 
> I do not see you proving that b is true.  "Flawed" requires the method  
> failing to provide the results it promises.
> 
> Dave Ketchum