[EM] A design flaw in the electoral system

[Michael Allan]

James, Juho and Fred, Thanks very much for looking at the argument.

> > An individual vote has no effect on the formal outcome of the
> > election; whether the vote is cast or not, the outcome is the same
> > regardless.

James Gilmour wrote:
> These statements worry me - surely they contain a logical flaw?  If
> these statements were true and every elector responded rationally,
> no-one would ever vote.  Then the outcome would not be the same.

It's an interesting distinction, and it might help in answering a
question I have about how people respond to this information (more on
that below).  But here I think you're looking at the effect of knowing
(if indeed it is true) that a vote has no effect, whereas I'm looking
at the effect of that vote itself.

Maybe the easiest way to understand it is in retrospect, by looking at
past votes that you cast.  I make a statement concerning each of those
votes and its actual effect in the objective world.

Juho Laatu wrote:
> I think it is incorrect or at least misleading to say that
> individual votes do not have any influence. They do, as a group.

If it had no bearing on the argument, then I might agree it's
misleading to say it.  But it's actually the premise of the argument.
Yesterday I wrote to another correspondent:

   A more direct answer [how is it possible?] is in the rounding
   procedure that translates a fine-grained sum into a coarse-grained
   outcome (who gets into office).  In that rounding, the effect of
   the fine grain is lost. ...

   Or, we might stand on empirical grounds and state: the measureable
   effect of an individual vote on the outcome is zero.  Which raises
   another question, "Why are people surprised to learn this?"

James's observation that "no-one would ever vote" if they accepted the
truth of it might figure into the answer.  But I think the fact itself
is indisputable, a matter of empirical science.  A simple thought
experiment will demonstrate this:

   1. Take the last election in which you voted, and look at its
      outcome (P).
   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.

Your vote never made a difference.  Most people feel uncomfortable or
perplexed in this knowledge, and I think the feeling indicates that
something's wrong.

Fred Gohlke wrote:
> I am not entirely clear on the flow of logic in your abstract, but I
> get the sense that you're saying voters should be able to cast their
> vote and have it, too ...
> 
>     Voters are not pieces of cake.  The act of voting does not
>     remove their needs and desires from the political system.
>     They should be able to continue to influence the political
>     process after they've voted.

I say that electors are physically separated from their ballots, and I
explain why this procedure is necessarily a design flaw.  I trace
other flaws, faults and failures back to this (including the
meaningless vote).  But I say nothing about how to deal with the
situation.  I think we lack an understanding of the overall problem,
so I'm just trying to figure it out.

> If I am offered options that affect my life, options that I've had
> no voice in defining, the ability to choose one of them is neither
> free nor democratic.  On the contrary, it expresses my status as a
> subject of those who defined the options.  The right to vote in such
> circumstances is a farce.

Yet, I believe this too can be traced to the design flaw in the
electoral system.  It's surprising a single flaw could propagate so
many failures, in such different forms, but it appears to be the case.

This draft section (design flaw) dealt only with the flaw itself, and
how it renders the results of the election technically invalid.  Other
sections (not yet drafted) will attempt to uncover the paths by which
the design flaw propagates through society at large.

-- 
Michael Allan

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


James Gilmour wrote:
> Michael Allan  > Sent: Monday, October 03, 2011 9:31 AM
> > ABSTRACT
> > --------
> > An individual vote has no effect on the formal outcome of the 
> > election; whether the vote is cast or not, the outcome is the 
> > same regardless.
> 
> These statements worry me  -  surely they contain a logical flaw?  If these statements were true and every elector responded
> rationally, no-one would ever vote.  Then the outcome would not be the same.
> 
> I am not "into logic", but I suspect the flaw is in some disconnection between the individual and the aggregate.  When A with 100
> votes wins over B with 99 votes, we cannot say which of the 100 individual votes for A was "the winning vote", but it is clear that
> is any one of those 100 votes had not been for A, then A would not have won.  At best, if one A-voter had stayed at home, there
> would have been a tie.  If one of the A-voters had voted for B instead, the outcome would have been very different.
> 
> Or am I missing something?
> 
> I do appreciate that there can be a disconnection, large or small, between the outcome of an election and the consequences in
> government (policy implementation  -  or not), but the statements quoted above were specifically about elections per se.  That's why
> I'm puzzled.
> 
> James Gilmour


Juho Laatu wrote:
> On 3.10.2011, at 11.56, James Gilmour wrote:
> 
> > Michael Allan  > Sent: Monday, October 03, 2011 9:31 AM
> >> ABSTRACT
> >> --------
> >> An individual vote has no effect on the formal outcome of the 
> >> election; whether the vote is cast or not, the outcome is the 
> >> same regardless.
> > 
> > These statements worry me  -  surely they contain a logical flaw?  If these statements were true and every elector responded
> > rationally, no-one would ever vote.  Then the outcome would not be the same.
> 
> One could also turn this around and say that a good method does not give the decision making power to any one individual voter. Voters should think in terms "what do we want" instead of "what do I want". One voter with his numerous anonymous friends that have similar thoughts can make the difference and decide who wins. It is not a question of "what if I don't vote" but a question of "what if we don't vote".
> 
> > 
> > I am not "into logic", but I suspect the flaw is in some disconnection between the individual and the aggregate.  When A with 100
> > votes wins over B with 99 votes, we cannot say which of the 100 individual votes for A was "the winning vote", but it is clear that
> > is any one of those 100 votes had not been for A, then A would not have won.  At best, if one A-voter had stayed at home, there
> > would have been a tie.  If one of the A-voters had voted for B instead, the outcome would have been very different.
> 
> One way to measure the impact of a vote would be to count how large percentage of some group of voters was needed. If A gets 100 votes and B gets 50, then A supporters needed 51% of their votes. Also all individual A supporters could in this case say that 51% of their vote was needed to win the election.
> 
> > 
> > Or am I missing something?
> > 
> > I do appreciate that there can be a disconnection, large or small, between the outcome of an election and the consequences in
> > government (policy implementation  -  or not), but the statements quoted above were specifically about elections per se.  That's why
> > I'm puzzled.
> 
> I think it is incorrect or at least misleading to say that individual votes do not have any influence. They do, as a group.
> 
> Juho


Fred Gohlke wrote:
> Good Morning, Michael
> 
> I am not entirely clear on the flow of logic in your abstract, but I get 
> the sense that you're saying voters should be able to cast their vote 
> and have it, too ...
> 
>     Voters are not pieces of cake.  The act of voting does not
>     remove their needs and desires from the political system.
>     They should be able to continue to influence the political
>     process after they've voted.
> 
> If that understanding of your paper is incorrect, I must improve my 
> understanding before I can comment more intelligently.
> 
> At the risk of digressing, I'd like to suggest that the 'Design Flaw in 
> the Electoral System' is a step further back.  The flaw is in the 
> assumption that the right to vote, by itself, makes a system free and 
> democratic.
> 
> That assumption is the root of the failure of our political system.
> 
> If I am offered options that affect my life, options that I've had no 
> voice in defining, the ability to choose one of them is neither free nor 
> democratic.  On the contrary, it expresses my status as a subject of 
> those who defined the options.  The right to vote in such circumstances 
> is a farce.
> 
> This is not to say voting is unimportant, it is to say that formation of 
> the options on which we vote is more important.
> 
> Fred Gohlke