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

[Dave Ketchum]

On Aug 28, 2011, at 4:32 AM, 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?
>
>> ... 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.)
>
>> ... 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.

Some methods do expose partial counts - especially when most have  
voted and some have not yet voted.

If the final count is 99000D to 99999R, the elected governor better  
understand that D opinions are too strong to dare ignoring such.
>
>
>>> ... An individual's vote can have no useful effect on the outcome
>>> of the election, or on anything else in the objective world.
>>> Again it follows:
>>>
>>> (a) What the individual voter thinks is of no importance; or
>>>
>>> (b) The election method is flawed.
>>>
>>> Which of these statements is true?  I think it must be (b).
>
> Dave Ketchum wrote:
>> Agreed that a is not true though, as you point out, one voter,
>> alone, changing a vote cannot be certain of changing the results.
>
> To be sure, the point is stronger: the voter can be certain of having
> no effect on the results whatsoever.

NOT true, for the vote, without the voter's vote, could be a tie - and  
the voter's vote mattering.
>
>> I do not see you proving that b is true.  "Flawed" requires the
>> method failing to provide the results it promises.
>
> Well, an election method rarely makes explicit promises.  We can only
> judge by people's expectations of it.  Your's for instance.  You had
> the expectation that an individual voter might have some influence
> over the outcome of the election, at least under certain conditions.
> Maybe you still do?  (You gave examples, but I don't understand the
> jargon.)

I still do not see a proof in your words.
>
>
> Warren Smith and Fred Gohlke had similar expectations.  Warren began
> with the hope of attaching some meaning to an individual vote based on
> its contribution to the outcome.  That turns out to be impossible
> because the contribution is zero.  You, Warren and Fred are all
> experts in one capacity or another, yet each of you had expectations
> of the election method that it could not meet.  What about the
> expectations of the voter?  Suppose we explained the alternatives to
> her (or him):
>
> (a) What you think is of no importance; or
>
> (b) The election method is flawed.
>
> She's going to pick (b).  She expects her vote to matter in some small
> way.  She expects it to *possibly* make a difference.  These are
> reasonable expectations, and I think any election method that fails to
> meet them is flawed.  Further, the flaw is deep and extensive.  It may
> be working to systematically distort the results, even to the point of
> electing candidates who could not otherwise be elected.
>
Huh?
> -- 
> Michael Allan
>
> Toronto, +1 416-699-9528
> http://zelea.com/
>
>
> Dave Ketchum wrote:
>> On Aug 27, 2011, at 9:23 PM, Michael Allan wrote:
>>
>>> Dave Ketchum wrote:
>>>> Conditions surrounding elections vary but, picking on a simple
>>>> example, suppose that, without your vote, there are exactly nR and
>>>> nD votes.  If that is the total vote you get to decide the election
>>>> by creating a majority with your vote.
>>>
>>> What do nR and nD stand for?
>>
>> ANY topic for which voters can choose among two goals.
>>>
>>>
>>>> Or, suppose a count of nPoor, 1Fair, and nGood and thus Fair being
>>>> the
>>>> median before you and a twin vote.
>>>>
>>>> If such twins vote Poor, that and total count go up by 2, median  
>>>> goes
>>>> up by 1 and is now Poor.
>>>>
>>>> If such twins vote Good, that and total count go up by 2, median  
>>>> goes
>>>> up by 1 and is now Good.
>>>
>>> This example speaks of two votes, but the rules grant me only  
>>> one.  I
>>> am interested in the effects of that vote, and any meaning we can
>>> derive from them.  I say there is none.
>>
>> Ok, so you vote alone.  To work with that, whenever median is not an
>> integer, subtract .5 to make it an integer.
>>
>>>> If you vote Poor, that and total count go up by 1, median is
>>>> unchanged and is now Poor.
>>>>
>>>> If you vote Good, that and total count go up by 1, median is
>>>> unchanged and remains Fair.
>>>
>>>> Note that single voters get no useful power in an election for
>>>> governor, but a majority voting together do have the power (by
>>>> combining their votes) to decide the election.
>>>
>>> I believe that is true for all elections that are conducted by
>>> conventional methods, regardless of the ballot used - Plurality,
>>> Range, Condorcet or Approval.  An individual's vote can have no  
>>> useful
>>> effect on the outcome of the election, or on anything else in the
>>> objective world.  Again it follows:
>>>
>>> (a) What the individual voter thinks is of no importance; or
>>>
>>> (b) The election method is flawed.
>>>
>>> Which of these statements is true?  I think it must be (b).
>>
>> Agreed that a is not true though, as you point out, one voter, alone,
>> changing a vote cannot be certain of changing the results.
>>
>> I do not see you proving that b is true.  "Flawed" requires the  
>> method
>> failing to provide the results it promises.
>>
>> Dave Ketchum
> ----
> Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for  
> list info