[EM] A design flaw in the electoral system

[Juho Laatu]

On 18.10.2011, at 5.57, Michael Allan wrote:

> Hi Juho,
> 
> Thanks for giving me a chance to explain.  It's a difficult thesis to
> summarize.  Nobody has admitted to being convinced by it yet.  At the
> same time, no serious flaws have been found.

Yes, also I have not found any actual flaws, but what we need, I think, is a common terminology. There is a paradox here, and agreed terms should be available to manage this situation, e.g. to separate concepts "vote has influence" and "note has no influence" that may be true at the same time (if one uses terms in some no good way as I did here).

> 
>> If we assume that the whole election had an impact (1 or N), but no
>> single vote was decisive, then who had the power?
> 
> (You're right of course.  The power to turn over the government is
> something on the order of 1 in this algebra, and not N as I said.)  If
> the answer were "nobody", then it would mean a massive power vacuum.
> Imagine all the political parties are disbanded by a heavenly decree
> and an election is called.  That election would proceed in something
> of a power vacuum owing to the zero power ballots.
> 
> The historical part of my thesis (if original) will argue that "the
> sum of these [zero power ballots] across the population amounts to a
> power vacuum, which, in mid to late Victorian times, led to the
> effective collapse of the electoral system and the rise of a mass
> party system.  Today, the organized parties make the decisions and
> exercise the political freedom that was intended for the individual
> citizens."
> 
> That's just a hypothesis.  We don't know with any certainty who is
> holding the electoral power, or how it's distributed.  This is perhaps
> the most serious failure, however, because we should know for certain.
> We should know it's the electors and nobody else.

I think there actually is a vacuum, and many voters don't vote because of that. Some voters may actually think that the power that they have is too small to bother to vote. Some may indeed think that probably their vote will not be a decisive vote. Some voters may think that politicians will never change which ever one of them is in power. Some have lost their trust in fellow voters. New better concepts and better understanding of the process might help.

> 
>>> Politicians won't be concerned about an individual vote, of course,
>>> because it makes no difference.
>> 
>> Do you mean that since no individual vote makes a difference the
>> politicians should stay home and not spend time and money in the
>> campaigns (shaking my hand and promising me things)?
> 
> Your vote never helped them and it's unlikely to help them in future.
> To measure the effect of your vote, I think we must do the experiment:
> 
>  1. Take the last election in which you voted, and look at its
>     outcome (P).  How did it affect the politicians?
>  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 affected any politicians.

My vote never did, but maybe the threat that I and some others might vote "wrong" maybe did.

> 
> We just had an election here in Ontario.  My member of parliament came
> and knocked at my door and asked for my vote.  I told him he had it.
> He thanked me and shook my hand, then proceeded to my neighbour's.
> The next day I voted for him.  That night, he was re-elected by a
> margin of 5,000 votes.  My own vote had no effect, of course.  (Only
> 49% voted in that election, which is a record low for Ontario.)

Maybe he didn't actually visit 5,000 persons, so maybe also he fought his campaign in vain :-).

> 
>> My best explanation is however still to think in terms of "how can
>> we influence" and not "how can I influence", when we consider
>> whether we should vote in the next election or not. Also the fact
>> that we vote is important since it keeps the politicians alert.
> 
> I agree, I think a citizen has a responsibility to vote.  Voting is a
> precious right, won by sacrifices.  But experts have a responsibility
> too.  The electoral system is compromised by a design flaw so severe
> that a citizen's vote is rendered meaningless, and we cannot say with
> any certainty who is making the electoral decisions.

But maybe if you form a small club (or a large club (=party)) that discusses and finds an agreement on how to vote. Then maybe you get the power that you want.

Juho



> 
> -- 
> Michael Allan
> 
> Toronto, +1 416-699-9528
> http://zelea.com/
> 
> 
> Juho Laatu wrote:
>> On 17.10.2011, at 23.33, Michael Allan wrote:
>> 
>>> Juho Laatu wrote:
>>>> True. My vote has probably not made any difference in any of the
>>>> (large) elections that I have ever participated. ...
>>> 
>>> You are not really in doubt, are you?  You would remember if your vote
>>> made a difference.
>> 
>> Most elections that I have participated in have been multi-winner elections. It is possible that my favourite has won with one vote but nobody has told me about that. I have not often checked the final results in that level of detail. It is also possible that my single vote has changed the proportional shares of seats of the parties. It is more probable (but not guaranteed) that I would have heard about such a tight race.
>> 
>>> 
>>>> I think I had my fair share of power (1 / number of voters).
>>> 
>>> Well, if the vote makes no difference, then it has no power.  Its
>>> power could not be 1/N, in any case; it is either zero (no effect) or
>>> something closer to N (decisive).  But a decisive vote is exceedingly
>>> rare and you're unlikely to cast one in your lifetime.
>> 
>> In multi-party elections also other numbers than 0 and 1 (or N) are possible.
>> 
>> If we assume that the whole election had an impact (1 or N), but no single vote was decisive, then who had the power?
>> 
>> The politicians also fought for my vote and therefore they drafted some plans and made some promises, so I feel that my vote (or the fact that I can vote and I voted) had some power (even if my vote was not a decisive vote). Maybe the election was fought (and plans for the future made and presented) already before the election day and before the votes were counted. Maybe the election results just verified what had already been decided just before the election day.
>> 
>>> 
>>>> (One more possible explanation is that the politicians were at least
>>>> afraid of me voting against them, and that's why they did what I
>>>> wanted them to do.)
>>> 
>>> Politicians won't be concerned about an individual vote, of course,
>>> because it makes no difference.
>> 
>> Do you mean that since no individual vote makes a difference the politicians should stay home and not spend time and money in the campaigns (shaking my hand and promising me things)?
>> 
>>> I think you were generalizing here to
>>> other voters, but the argument hinges on the individual vote.
>>> 
>>> That vote *ought* to have an effect, but it does not.  The situation
>>> is rightly difficult to accept.  Whatever political liberty you (or I)
>>> can salvage in the face of state power, it cannot come from that vote.
>> 
>> Maybe the explanation that I gave above, works here too. Maybe the key was the campaign time and programs and promises there.
>> 
>> 
>> My best explanation is however still to think in terms of "how can we influence" and not "how can I influence", when we consider whether we should vote in the next election or not. Also the fact that we vote is important since it keeps the politicians alert.
>> 
>> Juho
> ----
> Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info