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

[Michael Allan]

Matt, Dave and Fred,

> > > The meaning of an individual vote is mostly irrelevant ...
> >
> > 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?

Matt Welland wrote:
>     (c) Discussing the meaning of an individual vote is mostly
>         pointless

I can understand why you might want to dodge the question.  You've
taken a position that is difficult to defend.
 
> > The election method cannot tell you, "there are ten thousand
> > people who share your values and will vote as you vote" ...
> 
> Here in the US we have these things called "polls" which happen
> periodically prior to the real election. ...

I know.  Stuff happens outside of the election and beyond the reach of
the formal method, even (sometimes) unexpected stuff that the original
designers had no experience or understanding of.  Maybe later we can
say something about these.  For now, if you agree, let's return to the
topic and look at the meaning of a vote (or lack thereof).

You claim that the vote has little meaning, and I claim it has none at
all.  In either case, I think we can show that the election method is
consequently flawed.  Once we recognize the flaw and understand its
nature, then we can attempt to trace its consequences, including the
work of the polsters.

> > To be sure, the point is stronger: the voter can be certain of
> > having no effect on the results whatsoever.

Dave Ketchum wrote:
> NOT true, for the vote, without the voter's vote, could be a tie - and  
> the voter's vote mattering.

That notion of effect has several drawbacks:

  * All votes have exactly the same effect, not only the voter's.
    Each can cancel the other, even by ommission.

  * The effect is small, well below the margin of error for the count.

  * The effect is rare, occuring once every 10,000 years or so.

We cannot offer this explanation to the voter, especially in regard to
the meaning of her (or his) participation.  She will be thinking,
"This election method is an insult to me."

Fred Gohlke wrote:
> Good Afternoon, Michael
> 
> re: "Warren Smith and Fred Gohlke had similar expectations."
> 
> I had no expectation that anyone's vote would be worth a tinker's
> dam.  If anything I wrote gave a different impression, I erred and I
> apologize for it.

Greetings Fred,

Well, I was thinking of where you wrote in reply to Warren's proof,
'Since, as stated, "A single ballot can change the outcome of an
election."', and then followed up with observations on the meaning of
the ballot from the voter's perspective.  You concluded:

   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.

I agree.  I believe that every voter has that right, but is forever
cheated of it precisely because (this is my argument) the election
method grants no electoral power whatsoever to the voter, but instead
renders his or her vote entirely meaningless in any practical sense.
As you say, it is not "worth a tinker's dam."  But if we (this is my
hope) can cogently demonstrate this failing to the experts in this
list, especially in terms of the voting mechanisms they understand so
well, then they will be more open to drawing the larger conclusions
that seem so obvious to you and me, and I daresay others in this list.

To be sure, I should mention to others that election methods in which
an individual vote is meaningful do exist.  Fred has invented one of
them, namely Practical Democracy.  Abd ul-Rahman Lomax often touts
another, namely Delegable Proxy (which I also work with).  Even the
more traditional forms of ballot, like those of Range or Approval, can
be made meaningful by tweaking the method.

-- 
Michael Allan

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