[EM] a motion.

[Richard Lung]

"A Motion"

The analogy of the physics of motion to voter choice by way of the 
principle of relativity of a “motion” or choice, makes for a 
far-reaching comparison, extending from Galileo to Einstein. Even the 
general theory offers intriguing insights.

  The principle of equivalence liberated mankind from the notion of 
force, fastening down, by an inertial mass, to an awareness of being in 
a condition of accelerated motion.If a choice of Left or Right politics 
is akin to the “velocity” of motion or choice, then the acceleration of 
choice may be considered as a choice of a choice, or, say, a choice of 
left or right candidates within left or right parties.

The Plant report objected to primarys within the general election 
system, such as the Irish have, precisely because candidates within 
their party would have to compete against each other. They completely 
ignored that transferable voting means that all candidates have to be, 
and are, polite to each other, so that transferable votes may not be 
withheld from them. (A civilised politics, compared to the usual British 
slanging match, that astonished journalist Robert Peston.)

This “acceleration” of choice liberates the voters from the inertial 
mass or gravity of a two-party system, relying for its continuance on 
tactical voting to perpetuate their power. With the acceleration of 
choice, abolishing strategic/tactical voting, the gravitational power of 
the two-party system becomes illusory. No wonder the duopoly is so much 
against it!

Quantum theory

Besides motion on the large-scale with high energy physics of 
relativity, quantum theory is the physical motion on the sub-atomic 
scale. Does the other extreme still offer comparisons to a motion 
considered as a choice?

There are some points of comparison, it is perhaps worth mentioning. The 
study of elections falls into two parts: the vote and the count. 
Likewise, quantum theory is a dualism of particles that are also waves. 
Consider that a vote is a particle of choice, equal to all other 
particles, just as the electron is reckoned to be indistinguishable. 
Photons have different energys but they are all confined or classified 
to a commonly observed speed of light.

One person one vote is an equality classification, which is to say under 
the nominal scale of classification, the first and simplest level of 
measurement.The second and more accurate level of measurement is the 
ordinal scale, which gives “the vote” order of choice, that is necessary 
but mostly goes unthought-of, till the Fair-vote movement. Typically, as 
in Irish elections, the use of the preference vote falls off 
exponentially. That is, after a few high preferences, the voters rapidly 
leave off bothering to state more. Tho this may be largely because Irish 
constituencies have been whittled down in size, to offer only modest 
choices, and over-represent the largest party.

Even so, we can say that the exponential decay of the preference vote is 
a reliable indication of the weights to attach to subsequent 
preferences, as is indeed confirmed by the Gregory method of counting 
surplus transfers of votes.Exponential decay of choice may trail to the 
Right or Left. Taken together, it usually forms two wings of a normal 
distribution, like the graphical hump of a sine curve amplitude.
The double slit experiment, in quantum mechanics, has an analog in a 
binomial count: two slits for the electron to pass thru, tho classically 
it can only pass thru one; two rational counts, election and exclusion, 
for every voter, tho conventional election only offers one or none.
A point of comparison between the double slit experiment and a binomial 
count is that an election count may either be reinforced or neutralised 
by the exclusion count.
This is because a popular candidate, who gets a large surplus, may be 
unpopular with only a few other voters, who give him few exclusion 
votes. When the exclusion count is inverted to give a second opinion 
election count, it may increase rather than reduce the legitimacy of the 
original election count. Hence it is like wave super-position, 
increasing the “amplitude” of the vote.
But it may be that a candidate who is popular enough to win an election 
quota is also unpopular with other voters, awarding him an exclusion 
quota. As Forrest Simmons would say, he is “Schrödinger's candidate,” 
both “alive” and “dead” to the electorate. In this case, the two 
amplitudes would, more or less, neutralise each other. Hence, the 
makings of an election-exclusion interference pattern.
In theory, it might be possible to construct an idealised small-scale 
model of wave interference for the binomial count.
The binomial count is also a statistical prediction. It does not say 
exactly how popular any candidate happens to be; it gives a best 
estimate of representation, on appropriate averagings. Every subsequent 
election changes that prediction but is never more than a provisional 
reckoning, on which to award a legitimate holding of office. No one is 
ever a final, definitive elected official, but a temporary or “temp.”
This is all within the bounds of probability, however.
And is perhaps a good way to typically regard a “definitive” quantum 
experiment.

Regards,

Richard Lung.