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

[Dave Ketchum]

A SAD weakness about what is being said.

On Aug 24, 2011, at 12:55 PM, Fred Gohlke wrote:

> Michael Allan wrote:
>  "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?"

TRULY, this demonstrates lack of understanding of cause and effect.

IF the flask capacity is 32 oz then pouring in 1 oz  will:
.     Do nothing above filling if the flask starts with less than 31 oz.
.     Cause overflow if flask already full.

In voting there is often a limit at which time one more would have an  
effect.  If the act were pouring sodas into the Atlantic the limit  
would be far away.
>
> To which Warren Smith responded:
>  "--no.  A single ballot can change the outcome of an election.
>   This is true in any election method which is capable of having
>   at least two outcomes."
>
>   Proof: simply change ballots one by one until the outcome
>          changes.  At the moment it changes, that single ballot
>          changed an election outcome. QED.

BUT there could be many previous ballots of which none made any change.
>
>
> Since, as stated, "A single ballot can change the outcome of an  
> election." and "This is true in any election method which is capable  
> of having at least two outcomes.", why would a voter prefer a new  
> electoral method over the existing plurality method?
>
> From the voter's perspective, (s)he is already familiar with  
> plurality, so , if the new method produces the same result, why  
> change?

Truly no reason PROVIDED the new method provides the same result,  
given the same input.
>
> Cui bono?  Obviously, not the voter.
>
> When considering the 'meaning' of a vote, it is more important to  
> examine the question of what the voter is voting for or against.  
> Voting, of the type used in plurality contests, is profoundly  
> undemocratic, not because of the vote-counting method, but because  
> the people can only vote for or against candidates and issues chosen  
> by those who control the political parties - the people Robert  
> Michels' described as oligarchs.
>
> If the object of changing the electoral method is to build a more  
> just and democratic government, the proposed methods must give the  
> people a way to influence the choice of candidates and the issues on  
> which they vote.
>
> Fred Gohlke