[EM] The meaning of this discussion (or lack thereof)

[Michael Allan]

matt welland wrote:
> I did not say that a "vote has little meaning", I said that it is
> meaningless to discuss the individual vote! Those are two vastly
> different things.

Well, I think what you said is wrong.  Here is the original version:

> > > The meaning of an individual vote is mostly irrelevant and
> > > pointless to discuss. ...

This implies that the individual vote itself is irrelevant.  I wish to
clarify your intention on that point: are you saying that the
individual vote is irrelevant?

-- 
Michael Allan

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


matt welland wrote:
> On Sun, 2011-08-28 at 23:24 -0400, Michael Allan wrote:
> > 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.
> 
> Huh? Nothing to defend, if you continue to think that the "meaning of an
> individual vote" is worthy of analysis then more power to you. The (a)
> and (b) answers completely missed the point of my original statement so
> I added (c).
> 
> > > > 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.
> 
> I did not say that a "vote has little meaning", I said that it is
> meaningless to discuss the individual vote! Those are two vastly
> different things.
> 
> In my original response I voiced the opinion that analyzing a vote in
> isolation is meaningless. Well, mostly meaningless. I then had some fun
> contradicting myself and went ahead and gave some simple mathematical
> meaning to a single vote and illustrated how approval gives the voter N
> times more voting power than plurality where N is the number of
> candidates.
> 
> In my opinion your claim that an individual vote has no meaning is wrong
> and all one has to do is look at the real world to see that. What is
> interesting is that I think it may be possible to show the relative
> value of a vote for each system. 
> 
> Value of a vote per system:
> V=number of voters, N=number of candidates
> 
> Plurality: 1/(N*V)
> Approval:  1/V
> Condorcet: 1/(2*V)
> Range: 1/V
> 
> etc.