[EM] A design flaw in the electoral system

[Michael Allan]

Hi Juho,

Juho Laatu wrote:
> I thought / think that
> - voluntary participation in whatever clubs, with possibility to
>   influence others, and with possibility to vote in line with the
>   club discussions or even agree to vote that way does not limit
>   one's liberty to do whatever one wants
> - one limitation to liberty could be the fact that one has to
>   co-operate or there must be people that think the same way, but
>   that is just the realization of the fact that one is not a
>   dictator
> - secret ballots (that hide the fact which party and/or person you
>   voted) support liberty to vote the way one wants

I probably misunderstood you earlier.  As stated above, I see no
inconsistency between your thoughts (which seem true) and the thesis
as I understand it.

> - I can't say that I agree with the conclusions of the thesis
>   because I don't know what they are

As I confessed, "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."  To which you replied, "Yes, also I have not
found any actual flaws" [1].  Here is my latest attempt at a brief
summary with conclusions: [2]

  An individual vote in a general election has no meaningful effect in
  the objective world, and no effect whatsoever on the political
  outcome of the election; whether the vote is cast or not, the
  outcome is the same regardless.  Beneath this fact lies an extensive
  structural fault that emerges here and there in society as a series
  of persistent discontinuities between facts and norms, or contents
  and forms.  I trace the cause of this fault to a technical design
  flaw in the electoral system wherein the elector is physically
  separated from the ballot.  Crucially, this separation removes the
  elector cum voter (the active decider) from the means and product of
  decision.  It thereby disengages the citizen from constitutional
  electoral power and its concomitant supports of equality.  I argue
  that the sum of these disengagements 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 electoral power and political freedom that were
  intended for the citizens.

I now ask you to accept these conclusions as apparent or provisional
truths, provided you still see no flaws in the supporting argument.

> - 1/N is maybe a better (although not perfect) estimate of the power
>   that one voter holds than 0

The value 1/N appears to be erroneous.  It is refuted by empirical
evidence that measures the value at exactly zero.  Again, the
experimental method is:

  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.

Your vote never made a difference.  Therefore the power is measured at
exactly zero.  Theory suggests values on the order of 1 are also
expected, though only in rare situations that are unlikely to occur in
your own lifetime [3].  Values of 1/N, on the other hand, are neither
possible in theory nor measured in fact.  If they were, then I agree
it would indicate a flaw in the thesis.

Though the thesis is certainly fallible at points, no flaw has been
discovered to date.  While this remains the case, I request that you
accept the thesis as valid and its conclusions as apparent or
provisional truths.  I appeal to your intelligence and sense of
fairness here; is this not a reasonable and fair request?


 [1] http://lists.electorama.com/pipermail/election-methods-electorama.com/2011-October/028683.html

 [2] http://zelea.com/project/autonomy/a/fau/fau.xht

 [3] The smaller the election, the more likely it will be decided by a
     single vote.  In a mid-sized election for a US state legislator,
     the mean probability is roughly 9/40000 = 0.00022 [4].  Assuming
     a 2 year term of office, this translates to an average interval
     of 8889 years between such elections.  The structural fault may
     be exposed by pulling this into the human context of the
     argument: [5]

        I fear I would not live long enough to see an election in
        which my vote affected the outcome, or anything else in this
        world.  Yet every day I am affected by the decisions of those
        in power, and every day I must obey the laws.  I look around 
        and I note that my fellow citizens are in the same situation
        as I, each affected by administrative powers and laws over
        which he (or she) has no comparable influence.  It was not
        supposed to be this way.

     https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/private/liberationtech/2011-September/002117.html

 [4] Stephen J. Dubner and Steven D. Levitt.  2005.  Why Vote?  A
     Swiss Turnout-Boosting Experiment.  New York Times.  November 6,
     2005.  http://www.nytimes.com/2005/11/06/magazine/06freak.html

        Of the more than 40,000 elections for state legislator that
        Mulligan and Hunter analyzed ...  only 7 elections were
        decided by a single vote, with 2 others tied.  Of the more
        than 16,000 Congressional elections, in which many more people
        vote, only one election in the past 100 years - a 1910 race in
        Buffalo - was decided by a single vote."

 [5] The structural fault is partially described here:
     http://zelea.com/project/autonomy/a/fau/fau.xht#fau

     It was previously discussed here, though mostly offlist:
     http://lists.hmdc.harvard.edu/lists/apsa_itp_at_lists_hmdc_harvard_edu/2011_10/msg00008.html

-- 
Michael Allan

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