matt welland wrote: > I did not say that a "vote has little meaning", I said that it is > meaningless to discuss the individual vote! Those are two vastly > different things.
Well, I think what you said is wrong. Here is the original version: > > > The meaning of an individual vote is mostly irrelevant and > > > pointless to discuss. ... This implies that the individual vote itself is irrelevant. I wish to clarify your intention on that point: are you saying that the individual vote is irrelevant? -- Michael Allan Toronto, +1 416-699-9528 http://zelea.com/ matt welland wrote: > On Sun, 2011-08-28 at 23:24 -0400, Michael Allan wrote: > > Matt, Dave and Fred, > > > > > > > The meaning of an individual vote is mostly irrelevant ... > > > > > > > > The individual vote itself is irrelevant? We know that the vote > > > > is the formal expression of what a person thinks in regard to an > > > > electoral issue. Do you mean: > > > > (a) What the person thinks is irrelevant in reality? Or, > > > > (b) What the person thinks is irrelevant to the election method? > > > > Matt Welland wrote: > > > (c) Discussing the meaning of an individual vote is mostly > > > pointless > > > > I can understand why you might want to dodge the question. You've > > taken a position that is difficult to defend. > > Huh? Nothing to defend, if you continue to think that the "meaning of an > individual vote" is worthy of analysis then more power to you. The (a) > and (b) answers completely missed the point of my original statement so > I added (c). > > > > > The election method cannot tell you, "there are ten thousand > > > > people who share your values and will vote as you vote" ... > > > > > > Here in the US we have these things called "polls" which happen > > > periodically prior to the real election. ... > > > > I know. Stuff happens outside of the election and beyond the reach of > > the formal method, even (sometimes) unexpected stuff that the original > > designers had no experience or understanding of. Maybe later we can > > say something about these. For now, if you agree, let's return to the > > topic and look at the meaning of a vote (or lack thereof). > > > > You claim that the vote has little meaning, and I claim it has none at > > all. In either case, I think we can show that the election method is > > consequently flawed. Once we recognize the flaw and understand its > > nature, then we can attempt to trace its consequences, including the > > work of the polsters. > > I did not say that a "vote has little meaning", I said that it is > meaningless to discuss the individual vote! Those are two vastly > different things. > > In my original response I voiced the opinion that analyzing a vote in > isolation is meaningless. Well, mostly meaningless. I then had some fun > contradicting myself and went ahead and gave some simple mathematical > meaning to a single vote and illustrated how approval gives the voter N > times more voting power than plurality where N is the number of > candidates. > > In my opinion your claim that an individual vote has no meaning is wrong > and all one has to do is look at the real world to see that. What is > interesting is that I think it may be possible to show the relative > value of a vote for each system. > > Value of a vote per system: > V=number of voters, N=number of candidates > > Plurality: 1/(N*V) > Approval: 1/V > Condorcet: 1/(2*V) > Range: 1/V > > etc. ---- Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
