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

[Michael Allan]

> > 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?

Dave Ketchum wrote:
> 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.

Please relate this to an election.  Take an election for a US state
governor, for example.  Suppose I am eligible to vote.  I say my vote
cannot possibly affect the outcome of the election.  You say it can,
under certain conditions.  Under what conditions exactly?

Note my critique of Warren's proof in the other sub-thread:
http://lists.electorama.com/pipermail/election-methods-electorama.com/2011-August/028266.html

-- 
Michael Allan

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


Dave Ketchum wrote:
> 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