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

[Michael Allan]

Warren Smith wrote:
> Kenneth Arrow has worried that range-voting-type "score" votes might have no or
> unclear-to-Arrow "meaning."  In contrast, he considers rank-ordering-style
> votes to have a clear meaning.
> Nic Tideman has also expressed similar worries in email, but now about
> the "lack of meaning" of an approval-style vote.
> In contrast, I think Tideman regards a plurality-style "name one
> candidate then shut up"
> vote as having a clear meaning.
> 
> E.g. "what does a score of 6.5 mean, as opposed to a score of 6.1, on
> some ballot?"
> 

> ...

> But the Bayesian view is: whether or not Arrow or Tideman or
> somebody has a more-or-less muddled mental notion of the "meaning"
> of a ballot, is irrelevant.  The only genuinely meaningful thing is
> "who won the election?"  All meaning of any ballot therefore derives
> purely from the rules for mathematically obtaining the
> election-winner from the ballots.

The effect however of a single ballot is exactly zero.  It cannot
change the outcome of the election, or anything else in the objective
world.  We might attach such meaning to the voting system as a whole,
but not to the individual vote.

On the effects of an individual vote, see also: How to fix the flawed
"Nash equilibrium" concept for voting-theory purposes:
http://lists.electorama.com/pipermail/election-methods-electorama.com/2010-April/thread.html#25803
http://lists.electorama.com/pipermail/election-methods-electorama.com/2010-April/thread.html#25840

> ...

> All this analysis really tells us is the Bayesian view is correct.
> And certainly that any dismissal of range- or approval-style voting
> on the grounds of their claimed "inherent lack of meaning", is
> hogwash.

>From the vantage of the voter, however, the critique retains force.
It impacts not only range/approval, but also the single bullet and
ranked ballot.  No such ballot has any effect on the election and its
meaning is therefore called into question.

Most of an individual's actions in life have *some* possibility of
effect and we can attach meaning to this.  I can "take responsibility"
for my actions, for example, by weighing the consequences.  I can
discuss the rights and wrongs of the matter with others.

But not for voting.  The voting system guarantees that my vote will
have no effect and I would look rather foolish to suppose otherwise.
This presents a serious problem.  Do you agree?

-- 
Michael Allan

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