Dave Ketchum wrote: > It matters for most, if not all, methods, including Plurality. > Individually voters can rarely do anything, collectively they are the > result producers - without any necessity for contact amongst themselves.
Like magic? I agree that (a) the result is a collective of votes, but I disagree that (b) the electorate is a collective of voters. I also disagree that they (whatever we call them) produce the result in any deliberate or positive sense. (a) The result is obviously the sum of the votes, gathered together for this purpose, and tallied up. In that sense, the result is a collective. OK. (b) But the voters themselves do not gather together for mutual discussions concerning the election. As you say, there is generally no contact among them. Therefore they are not a collective and are not likely to act as one. Each voter acts as an isolated, private individual. Given (a) and (b) it is incorrect and misleading to state that any collective "they" is the producer of the result. If a result is produced, then the producer cannot be seen from within the horizon of the voting system. To see the producer, we must join the perspective of those who would work their influence upon the system from the outside, feeding information to the information hungry voters. From this perspective, a collective does emerge, but it emerges as a passive, more-or-less manipulated mass.^[1] By contrast, and assuming an ideal design, the electoral result of a public voting system is always a production of the public itself. The only difference here between a mass and a public, between passivity and assertiveness, is a voting system. No? [1] In one important sense, I overstate the argument. The mass of private voters is not always a passive instrument. It will not allow the worst excesses of government to be foisted upon it, for example. -- Michael Allan Toronto, 647-436-4521 http://zelea.com/ ---- Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info