[EM] the "meaning" of a vote (or lack thereof) and a (new?) metric for voting systems

[matt welland]

On Sun, 2011-08-28 at 04:32 -0400, Michael Allan wrote:
> 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?

(c) Discussing the meaning of an individual vote is mostly pointless

I vote for (c)

> > ... 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.)

I didn't know that. Thanks for clarifying.

> > ... 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.

Here in the US we have these things called "polls" which happen
periodically prior to the real election. Other information sources might
include attending political rallies and noticing the number of people
attending, talking with friends and so forth. 

With plurality the available information on how others will vote is
essential for an election to be anything other than a farce. Is there a
term for this voter values information? I think it is a good indicator
on the usefulness of the election method.

          |Criticality of voter|complexity | Matt gives 
Method    |values information  |and burden | Rating of ...
----------------------------------------------------------
plurality |  extreme           | very low  | extremely poor
condorcet |  low               | extreme   | poor
range     |  low               | high      | ok
approval  |  medium            | very low  | good
asset     |  low               | medium    | ok
IRV       |  extreme           | high      | extremely poor

Hmmm, I think the other column this table needs is "stability".

For the discussion on what election system to advocate at this time I
put very high weight on the complexity and burden column and medium
weight on the voter values column.