[EM] (1) The fact of an objectively meaningless vote

[Michael Allan]

Dear Fred,

> I've pondered your assertion that "the effect of an individual vote
> is exactly zero" for a considerable time and do not believe it is
> sound.  Your 5 points assume that elections are static events.
> They're not.
> 
> > 1. Take the last election in which you voted, and look at
> >    its political outcome (P).  Who got into office?
> > 2. Subtract your vote from that election.
> > 3. Recalculate the outcome without your vote (Q).
> > 4. Look at the difference between P and Q.
> > 5. Repeat for all the elections you ever participated in.
> 
> Elections do not take place in a vacuum.  Individuals are inspired
> to vote (or not vote) by the circumstances extant at the time of
> polling.  You cannot subtract a vote from an election without
> considering the change in circumstances that caused the individual
> to not vote and accounting for the effect of the changed
> circumstances on the electorate.  If the new circumstances caused an
> entire bloc of like-minded individuals to not vote, it would alter
> the election result.  The only question is the extent of the
> alteration.  It may, or may not, change the result.

I think it's simpler than you suppose.  In changing an experimental
variable (to vote or not), science need not consider the circumstances
that would have preceded such a change, because the hypothesis
concerns only the circumstances that follow from it.  The hypothesis
is that *if* an individual vote is changed, then that change *in
itself* will have no effect.  The implicit qualifier "in itself" makes
the experimental conclusion valid regardless of prior circumstances.
Otherwise experimental science as a whole is called into question.

The hypothesis about the vote is only about the vote, not about all
the circumstances that might cause one to vote, or not to vote, or to
vote in a certain way.  The hypothesis of no effect is actually false
under the circumstances that result in a tie breaker/maker election;
but true in all others.  This can be proven using actual electoral
equipment if necessary, although the thought experiment alone is
sufficient.

> I do not question the fact that the effect of a single vote is
> infinitesimal, but it is not zero.  A single vote affects an
> election in the same way a single drop of sea-water affects the
> tides.

I'm afraid it cannot have that effect, even in theory, because the
effect "is nullified once the fine-grained sum is rounded to a
coarse-grained outcome (who gets into office)". *  The empirical
evidence merely confirms this theory.  Everything points to the fact
that the vote has no effect whatsoever on the official outcome.

  * See end of http://zelea.com/project/autonomy/a/fau/fau.xht#fla

> I'm unclear about why you think the difference between infinitesimal
> and zero is significant.  Perhaps your response to the "questions
> about other sections" will clarify the matter.

I thought it was a premise; but it turns out the powerless vote is
only an indicator that something is wrong.  You see, it should hardly
be possible to run an experiment like this.  The effect of any given
vote (and thus voter) should be incalculable and unbounded, just like
all other effects of a person in the social world.

Then again, it's fortunate we can measure the absolute powerlessness
of individual votes so precisely.  We know the sum of those votes is
not powerless (quite the contrary) which allows us to conclude that
*all* electoral power must exist in communications external to the
electoral system itself.  A design that enforces the formal isolation
of voter from voter, as does ours by separating the ballot from the
elector, is therefore inconsistent with its own purpose.  If all power
*must* be excercised in external communication networks, then the last
thing we want is to erect communication barriers among voters that
might exclude them from those networks, and thus exclude them from
electoral power.  Exactly such an exclusion appears to have resulted
in the transfer of power to the mass parties in the late 19th century,
and has perhaps contributed to other mass effects in the 20th century.

-- 
Michael Allan

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