[EM] a motion.

[Richard Lung]

I was forgeting that the Young double-slit experiment is not a 
specifically quantum effect but goes back to 1800. And its wave 
interference was recognsed in classical physics, changing physicists 
Newtonian particle view of light.

However, the quantum analogy with elections is still apparent. By the 
sum over paths principle, a single electron has the propensity to pass 
thru both slits. "The vote" can analogously pass thru both "slits" when 
it is a transferable vote, which is the one vote that allows each voter 
to share their vote with more than one candidate. In fact this is the 
reason why STV is the only genuinely sharing vote; the only true form of 
"proportional representation."

Richard Lung.


On 26/01/2024 19:11, Richard Lung wrote:
> "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.
>
>