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

[matt welland]

On Wed, 2011-08-31 at 01:13 -0400, Michael Allan wrote:
> matt welland wrote:
> > Ah, yes I can see the error. Some poor and ambiguous English on my
> > part.  I intended to group the "irrelevant and pointless" and apply
> > it to the word "discuss". Sorry about that.
> 
> I guess I understood that, no need to apologize.
> 
> > > > > > The meaning of an individual vote is mostly irrelevant and
> > > > > > pointless to discuss. ...
> 
> I still think you are wrong, and I put a question to you fair and
> square:  Is it your intention to imply that the individual vote is
> irrelevant?  Is that what you think, or not?

As I tried to to previously communicate my opinion was this: an
individual vote is relevant and of greater than zero value, however
discussing voting methods from the perspective of the individual vote is
of very limited usefulness.

My opinion has shifted in that I now think there may be some usefulness
in discussing the individual vote.

For example the equations for the individual value of a vote can
possibly yield insight into sensitivity to variables. For example it may
be argued that the power of your vote should only vary with the number
of voters. Plurality would violate this as the power of your vote
depends on the number of candidates.