[EM] A design flaw in the electoral system

[Juho Laatu]

On 22.10.2011, at 1.42, Michael Allan wrote:

> 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.

True, if one considers only the formal output of the election and says "with high probability no effect in large elections if changed". I don't agree with "no effect whatsoever on the political outcome". Only the technical outcome is unlikely to change if one vote changes in large elections.

>  Beneath this fact lies an extensive
>  structural fault

This is not a "flaw", but I wouldn't say "extensive structural fault" but something milder.

> 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.

This was a bit too difficult to comment. The meaning of separation and its impacts are not clear. (No flaws identified, mostly opinions.)

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

Too vague for me to be accepted as a provisional truth. The technical analysis of the methods part was the part where I had not identified any technical flaws.

> 
>> - 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.

Maybe we should make a difference between the technical analysis of the method and the real life impact of voting. Maybe terms "technical outcome" and "political outcome" could be used (although I note that you used the latter term in a different meaning few lines before this line). The first term refers to the method as a formally defined function. The latter terms may covers all aspects of the society, the impact of campaigns, impact of the numeric result of this election on the next election etc.

Juho