[EM] A design flaw in the electoral system

[Michael Allan]

Juho Laatu wrote:
> Yes, also I have not found any actual flaws [in the thesis], 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 "[v]ote has no
> influence" that may be true at the same time (if one uses terms in
> some no good way as I did here).

The thesis would be invalid if it were expressing a paradox.  But I
see no paradox; only a situation that's difficult to accept on the one
hand, and difficult to reject on the other.  It looks more like a
dilemma.  This might be expected with a centuries old flaw that's
woven into the fabric of society; it's a part of us in some sense.

> 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.

The better I understand the process the more failures I see.  I have
to suppress a tendency to exaggerate, because the failures aren't
total and unqualified, and they do appear to originate in that one,
simple flaw.  It's not the "crooked timber of humanity" or anything
that we have to learn to live with.  It's just an error in the design
of an electoral system that dates back to the 1700s, a design that no
responsible engineer would sign off on, today.  After understanding
it, therefore, I think we must fix it.

> >  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.

Yes, or even many others.  The politician wants any and all votes, but
never just a single vote.  That's no help to him, of course.  Only the
individual voter cares about that single vote.  Again, this disconnect
of concerns is just one more expression of the basic design flaw.  It
seems to have penetrated all aspects of modern politics.

> 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.

Only at the cost of political liberty.  To allow a flaw in the
electoral system to rule my actions would be to surrender to a
contingency and immediately lose my freedom.  My subsequent actions in
the party would be more likely to confirm and consolidate that loss,
than to redeem it.

   Man is born free; and everywhere he is in chains.  One thinks
   himself the master of others, and still remains a greater slave
   than they. *

We teach our children that a vote formalizes both power and equality,
having learned ourselves that these are the two preconditions of
political liberty.  In abandoning my vote, I therefore abandon my
fellow citizens and the one structural support of political liberty
that the constitution guarantees.  For lack of that support, any power
I now aquire for myself in the party is liable to come at the expense
of others, and serve only to make me a fitter instrument of the
contingency that binds us all.  My entire political career will be
nothing but the expression of a poor technical design, a flaw still
waiting to be corrected.

I think we have to fix that flaw, not work around it.  The failures we
witness in society are themselves the work arounds.


 * The social contract, or principles of political right.  1762.
   http://ebooks.adelaide.edu.au/r/rousseau/jean_jacques/r864s/book1.html

-- 
Michael Allan

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


Juho Laatu wrote:
> 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