Michael Allan wrote:
"But not for voting. The voting system guarantees that my vote
will have no effect and I would look rather foolish to suppose
otherwise. This presents a serious problem. Do you agree?"
To which Warren Smith responded:
"--no. A single ballot can change the outcome of an election.
This is true in any election method which is capable of having
at least two outcomes."
Proof: simply change ballots one by one until the outcome
changes. At the moment it changes, that single ballot
changed an election outcome. QED.
Since, as stated, "A single ballot can change the outcome of an
election." and "This is true in any election method which is capable of
having at least two outcomes.", why would a voter prefer a new electoral
method over the existing plurality method?
From the voter's perspective, (s)he is already familiar with plurality,
so , if the new method produces the same result, why change?
Cui bono? Obviously, not the voter.
When considering the 'meaning' of a vote, it is more important to
examine the question of what the voter is voting for or against.
Voting, of the type used in plurality contests, is profoundly
undemocratic, not because of the vote-counting method, but because the
people can only vote for or against candidates and issues chosen by
those who control the political parties - the people Robert Michels'
described as oligarchs.
If the object of changing the electoral method is to build a more just
and democratic government, the proposed methods must give the people a
way to influence the choice of candidates and the issues on which they vote.
Fred Gohlke
----
Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
