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

[Michael Allan]

Warren Smith wrote:
> --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.

Your proof is flawed, of course.  It assumes the election method would
allow one to "change ballots one by one until the outcome changes".
Such gross manipulations are not permitted by the rules of any
election method.  The rules grant to the voter a single vote, and that
is all.

The challenge is to describe how the use of that vote could affect the
outcome of the election, or of anything else in the objective world.
How exactly could it?

You know that it cannot.  Earlier you wrote, 'The only genuinely
meaningful thing is "who won the election?"'  I agree that matters.
But if the election method grants to the individual voter no influence
over that outcome, then either:

  a) What the voter thinks is of no importance; or

  b) The election method is flawed.

We cannot dismiss both of these.  One of them must be true.

-- 
Michael Allan

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


Warren Smith wrote:
> >Michael Allan:
> 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.
> 
> --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.
> 
> Also, even in elections which can only be changed by changing a set of
> (more than one) ballot,
> ballots still derive meaning from that.
> 
> -- 
> Warren D. Smith
> http://RangeVoting.org  <-- add your endorsement (by clicking
> "endorse" as 1st step)
> and
> math.temple.edu/~wds/homepage/works.html
> ----
> Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
> 
> 
> Michael Allan wrote:
> > 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/