[EM] A design flaw in the electoral system
Thanks very much for replying, Fred. Metagovernment is a good list for these kind of discussions, as good as any I know. You'd definitely be welcome there. I'll look up the reference you mention, and respond more fully soon. In the meantime, I wish to share an updated abstract, plus a first draft of the section that concerns the electoral system. Critique is welcome. http://zelea.com/project/autonomy/a/fau/fau.xht ABSTRACT An individual vote has no effect on the formal outcome of the election; whether the vote is cast or not, the outcome is the same regardless. This appears to open a structural fault in society between the individual person and the individual vote. The voter as such (as a decider) is thus alienated from the means and product of decision, and thereby disengaged from political power and freedom. I argue that the sum of these disengagements across the population amounts to a power vacuum, which, in mid to late Victorian times, led to the effective collapse of the electoral system and the rise of a mass party system. Today, the organized parties make the decisions and exercise the political power that was intended for the individual voters. I trace this failure back to a technical design flaw in the electoral system, wherein the elector is physically separated from the ballot. [QCW] A DESIGN FLAW IN THE ELECTORAL SYSTEM - The electoral system uses a flawed model of the social world and no valid decision may be extracted from its results. The results depend upon a voting procedure in which the individual person as an elector is separated from her ballot (or his ballot) prior to the formation of a decision. This procedure not only invalidates the decision, but physically causes the structural fault in society between the individual person and the individual vote, thereby raising the possibility of broader societal failures. That fault and those failures are the topic of the previous and subsequent sections respectively, while this section deals with the root cause in the design of the electoral system. Objectively +> meaningless vote + | | (a) | V (d) | (g) Disconnect between elect-Structural fault between -or and ballot in flawed --> person and vote in electoral procedure society | | (b) V V (e) Flawed model of social Power vacuum world in count engine | | V (f) (c) V Collapse of electoral Invalid decision system onto party system == Formal failure of --> Actual failures in technical design society (h) [REL] Causal relations. The direct causal relations among flaws, fault and failures (a - g) appear to establish an indirect relation (h) between a formal failure of technical design and the actual failures in society. Consider the voting procedure. On election day, the individual elector arrives at the polling place and enters a voting booth. There she (or he) places a pencil on the ballot and marks an 'X'. By this act, she becomes an actual voter. As a voter, she walks over to the ballot box and deposits her ballot, then walks away a non-voter again. She and her vote now go separate ways, her vote to remain in the ballot box to be summed with the others; and she perhaps homeward to await the announcement of the results. This, in essence, is the procedure for every voter in every state election. It is a direct cause (g) of the structural fault between person and vote in society, which here assumes its physical form in the disconnection between elector and ballot, as multiplied across the population. The individual votes are summed in the count engine to produce a numeric result, which in turn decides the final issue of the election - one of the candidates enters office, for example, while the others do not. This issue is interpreted as a legitimate decision of the voters. Some doubt might be cast on this interpretation, at this point, by observing the state of expectant curiosity in which the voters, now bereft of their votes, await to hear the decision. Ordinarily a group of decision makers is cognizant of the decision they are making. This doubt as to legitimacy takes on a technical form in the observation that the interpretation of results is lacking in material grounds. The formal aggregate of votes in the count engine does not correspond to a
Re: [EM] A design flaw in the electoral system
Michael Allan > Sent: Monday, October 03, 2011 9:31 AM > ABSTRACT > > An individual vote has no effect on the formal outcome of the > election; whether the vote is cast or not, the outcome is the > same regardless. These statements worry me - surely they contain a logical flaw? If these statements were true and every elector responded rationally, no-one would ever vote. Then the outcome would not be the same. I am not "into logic", but I suspect the flaw is in some disconnection between the individual and the aggregate. When A with 100 votes wins over B with 99 votes, we cannot say which of the 100 individual votes for A was "the winning vote", but it is clear that is any one of those 100 votes had not been for A, then A would not have won. At best, if one A-voter had stayed at home, there would have been a tie. If one of the A-voters had voted for B instead, the outcome would have been very different. Or am I missing something? I do appreciate that there can be a disconnection, large or small, between the outcome of an election and the consequences in government (policy implementation - or not), but the statements quoted above were specifically about elections per se. That's why I'm puzzled. James Gilmour Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
Re: [EM] A design flaw in the electoral system
On 3.10.2011, at 11.56, James Gilmour wrote: > Michael Allan > Sent: Monday, October 03, 2011 9:31 AM >> ABSTRACT >> >> An individual vote has no effect on the formal outcome of the >> election; whether the vote is cast or not, the outcome is the >> same regardless. > > These statements worry me - surely they contain a logical flaw? If these > statements were true and every elector responded > rationally, no-one would ever vote. Then the outcome would not be the same. One could also turn this around and say that a good method does not give the decision making power to any one individual voter. Voters should think in terms "what do we want" instead of "what do I want". One voter with his numerous anonymous friends that have similar thoughts can make the difference and decide who wins. It is not a question of "what if I don't vote" but a question of "what if we don't vote". > > I am not "into logic", but I suspect the flaw is in some disconnection > between the individual and the aggregate. When A with 100 > votes wins over B with 99 votes, we cannot say which of the 100 individual > votes for A was "the winning vote", but it is clear that > is any one of those 100 votes had not been for A, then A would not have won. > At best, if one A-voter had stayed at home, there > would have been a tie. If one of the A-voters had voted for B instead, the > outcome would have been very different. One way to measure the impact of a vote would be to count how large percentage of some group of voters was needed. If A gets 100 votes and B gets 50, then A supporters needed 51% of their votes. Also all individual A supporters could in this case say that 51% of their vote was needed to win the election. > > Or am I missing something? > > I do appreciate that there can be a disconnection, large or small, between > the outcome of an election and the consequences in > government (policy implementation - or not), but the statements quoted > above were specifically about elections per se. That's why > I'm puzzled. I think it is incorrect or at least misleading to say that individual votes do not have any influence. They do, as a group. Juho > > James Gilmour > > > > Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
Re: [EM] A design flaw in the electoral system
Good Morning, Michael I am not entirely clear on the flow of logic in your abstract, but I get the sense that you're saying voters should be able to cast their vote and have it, too ... Voters are not pieces of cake. The act of voting does not remove their needs and desires from the political system. They should be able to continue to influence the political process after they've voted. If that understanding of your paper is incorrect, I must improve my understanding before I can comment more intelligently. At the risk of digressing, I'd like to suggest that the 'Design Flaw in the Electoral System' is a step further back. The flaw is in the assumption that the right to vote, by itself, makes a system free and democratic. That assumption is the root of the failure of our political system. If I am offered options that affect my life, options that I've had no voice in defining, the ability to choose one of them is neither free nor democratic. On the contrary, it expresses my status as a subject of those who defined the options. The right to vote in such circumstances is a farce. This is not to say voting is unimportant, it is to say that formation of the options on which we vote is more important. Fred Gohlke Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
Re: [EM] A design flaw in the electoral system
Good Morning, James I, too, am not completely clear on Michael's meaning. When a choice is made by counting votes, your notion that each vote has an effect seems intuitively obvious. However, the effectiveness of each vote is less clear. One expression of the problem was written by Daniel R. Ortiz in The Paradox of Mass Democracy: "Democracy's three necessary conditions increasingly and embarrassingly conflict. For perfectly understandable reasons, the more we broaden and equalize political participation, the more difficult we make individual political choice. In other words, there is some tradeoff between the quantity and quality of individual political engagement." p. 211, Rethinking The Vote, Oxford University Press, 2004 Thus, voting in the real world becomes - as Michael says - meaningless. We must look deeper. The most fundamental element of politics is that issues arise in the body politic. Although individuals and groups can instigate issues, they cannot prevent their inception. That is to say, issues are independent of any individual or group; they are a matter of the people. Current political practice allows groups to 'interpret' public issues and offer options for their resolution. Such a process is inherently flawed because the groups that 'interpret' the issues offer options that favor their interest. The result is perpetual confrontation between groups seeking advantages. We can do better than that. Fred Gohlke Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
Re: [EM] A design flaw in the electoral system
James, Juho and Fred, Thanks very much for looking at the argument. > > An individual vote has no effect on the formal outcome of the > > election; whether the vote is cast or not, the outcome is the same > > regardless. James Gilmour wrote: > These statements worry me - surely they contain a logical flaw? If > these statements were true and every elector responded rationally, > no-one would ever vote. Then the outcome would not be the same. It's an interesting distinction, and it might help in answering a question I have about how people respond to this information (more on that below). But here I think you're looking at the effect of knowing (if indeed it is true) that a vote has no effect, whereas I'm looking at the effect of that vote itself. Maybe the easiest way to understand it is in retrospect, by looking at past votes that you cast. I make a statement concerning each of those votes and its actual effect in the objective world. Juho Laatu wrote: > I think it is incorrect or at least misleading to say that > individual votes do not have any influence. They do, as a group. If it had no bearing on the argument, then I might agree it's misleading to say it. But it's actually the premise of the argument. Yesterday I wrote to another correspondent: A more direct answer [how is it possible?] is in the rounding procedure that translates a fine-grained sum into a coarse-grained outcome (who gets into office). In that rounding, the effect of the fine grain is lost. ... Or, we might stand on empirical grounds and state: the measureable effect of an individual vote on the outcome is zero. Which raises another question, "Why are people surprised to learn this?" James's observation that "no-one would ever vote" if they accepted the truth of it might figure into the answer. But I think the fact itself is indisputable, a matter of empirical science. A simple thought experiment will demonstrate this: 1. Take the last election in which you voted, and look at its outcome (P). 2. Subtract your vote from that election. 3. Recalculate the outcome without your vote (Q). 4. Look at the difference between P and Q. 5. Repeat for all the elections you ever participated in. Your vote never made a difference. Most people feel uncomfortable or perplexed in this knowledge, and I think the feeling indicates that something's wrong. Fred Gohlke wrote: > I am not entirely clear on the flow of logic in your abstract, but I > get the sense that you're saying voters should be able to cast their > vote and have it, too ... > > Voters are not pieces of cake. The act of voting does not > remove their needs and desires from the political system. > They should be able to continue to influence the political > process after they've voted. I say that electors are physically separated from their ballots, and I explain why this procedure is necessarily a design flaw. I trace other flaws, faults and failures back to this (including the meaningless vote). But I say nothing about how to deal with the situation. I think we lack an understanding of the overall problem, so I'm just trying to figure it out. > If I am offered options that affect my life, options that I've had > no voice in defining, the ability to choose one of them is neither > free nor democratic. On the contrary, it expresses my status as a > subject of those who defined the options. The right to vote in such > circumstances is a farce. Yet, I believe this too can be traced to the design flaw in the electoral system. It's surprising a single flaw could propagate so many failures, in such different forms, but it appears to be the case. This draft section (design flaw) dealt only with the flaw itself, and how it renders the results of the election technically invalid. Other sections (not yet drafted) will attempt to uncover the paths by which the design flaw propagates through society at large. -- Michael Allan Toronto, +1 416-699-9528 http://zelea.com/ James Gilmour wrote: > Michael Allan > Sent: Monday, October 03, 2011 9:31 AM > > ABSTRACT > > > > An individual vote has no effect on the formal outcome of the > > election; whether the vote is cast or not, the outcome is the > > same regardless. > > These statements worry me - surely they contain a logical flaw? If these > statements were true and every elector responded > rationally, no-one would ever vote. Then the outcome would not be the same. > > I am not "into logic", but I suspect the flaw is in some disconnection > between the individual and the aggregate. When A with 100 > votes wins over B with 99 votes, we cannot say which of the 100 individual > votes for A was "the winning vote", but it is clear that > is any one of those 100 votes had not been for A, then A would not have won. > At best, if one A-voter had stayed at home, there > would have been a tie. If one of the A-voters had voted for B instead,
Re: [EM] A design flaw in the electoral system
On 5.10.2011, at 9.44, Michael Allan wrote: > 1. Take the last election in which you voted, and look at its > outcome (P). > 2. Subtract your vote from that election. > 3. Recalculate the outcome without your vote (Q). > 4. Look at the difference between P and Q. > 5. Repeat for all the elections you ever participated in. > > Your vote never made a difference. Most people feel uncomfortable or > perplexed in this knowledge, and I think the feeling indicates that > something's wrong. I'm not sure that most people feel uncomfortable with this. Many have learned to live as part of the surrounding society, and they don't expect their vote to be the one that should decide between two alternatives. I don't think there is anything wrong. I can understand that some feel so, but I rather think that they are wrong. One could also say that a system where it would be common that one's vote could decide who the winner is would be a bad system. That system would be a very unstable. But I guess the key point is to learn to think in terms of what do WE decide instead of what do I decide. Juho Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
Re: [EM] A design flaw in the electoral system
Good Morning, Michael re: "I say that electors are physically separated from their ballots ..." This is the point I don't understand. What do you mean by "physically separated from their ballots"? When there are candidates for an office and a voter expresses a preference by voting for one of them, how could the voter not be physically separated from the ballot - and why is it important? Fred Gohlke Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
Re: [EM] A design flaw in the electoral system
Dear Juho and Fred, > > Your vote never made a difference. Most people feel uncomfortable > > or perplexed in this knowledge, and I think the feeling indicates > > that something's wrong. Juho Laatu wrote: > I'm not sure that most people feel uncomfortable with this. Many > have learned to live as part of the surrounding society, and they > don't expect their vote to be the one that should decide between two > alternatives. I certainly never expected my own vote to be decisive in an election. But knowing it has *no* effect on the outcome? This is unexpected and makes me uneasy. (more below) Fred Gohlke wrote: > re: "I say that electors are physically separated from their > ballots ..." > > This is the point I don't understand. What do you mean by > "physically separated from their ballots"? I mean the ballot goes in the ballot box and the elector walks away without it. > When there are candidates for an office and a voter expresses a > preference by voting for one of them, how could the voter not be > physically separated from the ballot - and why is it important? The importance lies in being able to trace the structural fault and other societal failures back to this physical separation. Here's an updated graph: http://zelea.com/project/autonomy/a/fau/fau.xht#REL Rounding procedure | (a) | |Objectively +> meaningless vote + | | (e) | V (b) |(ab) Disconnect between elect-Structural fault between -or and ballot in flawed --> person and vote in electoral procedure society | | (f) V V (c) Flawed model of social Power vacuum world in count engine| | V (d) (g) V Collapse of electoral Invalid decision system onto party system == Formal failure of --> Actual failures in technical design society (h) [REL] Causal relations. The direct causal relations among flaws, fault and failures (a-g, ab) appear to establish an indirect relation (h) between a formal failure of technical design and actual failures in society. Leaving aside the obvious physical relation (ab), consider how the separation is causing (e) the meaningless vote. ... since the meaninglessness of an individual vote arises from the objective certainty that the vote is *not* a source of decision, the flaw can only (e) be contributing to that meaninglessness; in fact, by separating the elector from the ballot and the voter from the voter, it closes off all possible avenues for the voter *as such* to overcome (a) the rounding procedure at election's end. This seals the vote's formal fate as a numerical nullity. [RP] How could a voter not be separated from the ballot? Consider how an informal process of decision plays out in a small group. The means of assent here is a semi-formal signal - an "aye" or nod of the head - that is equivalent to the ballot, but inseparable from the person. Consider the role played by such signals and the persons who *as signallers* remain in control of them. Imagine one person is nodding in agreement to a proposal, while another is shaking her head. Observe how the other participants respond to these signals, and the level of energy they put into trying to understand each other, and to helping the group as a whole reach a decision. These observations would go some way to answering your question, because the participant in such an informal decision group (or even a formal triad) is effectively an elector in possession and control of his/her ballot. Call him a voter. We could ask, "What effect did this voter *as such* have on the decision that was reached, or anything that followed from it?" In most cases, the answer would be incalculable, tied up in a web of cause and effect that plays out endlessly. We might say it was "boundless", or that it hovered somewhere between zero and infinity. In further reply to Juho, I would offer this indeterminacy as an alternative to the apparent dilemma of no effect vs. decisive effect. [RP] Once separated from the voter, the effect of the individual vote is nullified by the rounding procedure that translates a fine-grained sum into a coarse-grained outcome (who gets into office). In that rounding, the effect of the fine grain is lost (originally discussed with TE, Skype 2011.10.1-3). -- Michael Allan Toronto, +1 416-699-9528 http://zelea.co
Re: [EM] A design flaw in the electoral system
On 7/22/64 2:59 PM, Michael Allan wrote: Dear Juho and Fred, Your vote never made a difference. Most people feel uncomfortable or perplexed in this knowledge, and I think the feeling indicates that something's wrong. Juho Laatu wrote: I'm not sure that most people feel uncomfortable with this. Many have learned to live as part of the surrounding society, and they don't expect their vote to be the one that should decide between two alternatives. I certainly never expected my own vote to be decisive in an election. But knowing it has *no* effect on the outcome? This is unexpected and makes me uneasy. (more below) I think we should be a little more careful here. Just because a voter's vote has no effect on the outcome of an election does not mean that the vote has no effect. By voting you are affecting the margin of victory or defeat. And vote margins still matter to politicians -- they signal whether the politicians are taking the right positions and making convincing arguments. -- Andrew Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
Re: [EM] A design flaw in the electoral system
At 04:30 AM 10/3/2011, Michael Allan wrote: http://zelea.com/project/autonomy/a/fau/fau.xht ABSTRACT An individual vote has no effect on the formal outcome of the election; whether the vote is cast or not, the outcome is the same regardless. This appears to open a structural fault in society between the individual person and the individual vote. The voter as such (as a decider) is thus alienated from the means and product of decision, and thereby disengaged from political power and freedom. I argue that the sum of these disengagements across the population amounts to a power vacuum, which, in mid to late Victorian times, led to the effective collapse of the electoral system and the rise of a mass party system. Today, the organized parties make the decisions and exercise the political power that was intended for the individual voters. I trace this failure back to a technical design flaw in the electoral system, wherein the elector is physically separated from the ballot. [QCW] The flaw is real, and it results from secret ballot voting as a method of making complex decisions (choice between more than two alternatives), where the amalgamation process, which in pure democracy is only the final stage of a complete deliberative process, a ratification of prior work, becomees the only form of expression of the voter. The flaw was addressed by Lewis Carroll in about 1883, with his invention of what was later called Candidate Proxy (several authors, this list in the 1990s) and Asset Voting (Warren Smith, c. 2002, as I recall). If Asset Voting is used to create a proportional representation system, using STV (but probably most voters just listing one candidate), and the Hare quota (thus allowing one or possibly more seats to remain vacant pending further process), a system is set up whereby the norm is that every vote counts, and can be seen to affect the result. That is, the method, if applied in a certain way, creates an assembly where every voter made their own personal optimal vote, and that vote then enabled the election either of a specific seat in the Assembly, or, in some cases, may have been split to elect more than one seat, or in relatively rare cases, all or part of the vote is *suspended*, as it were, pending further process, and the vote, even then, though not having a "seat," and thus creating a right to participate in the full assembly deliberative process, may still have real political power, that is, may be expressed directly in the Assembly whenever amalgamation takes place. I'm not aware of any other system that can do this on a large scale. Asset Voting is really Delegable Proxy with a secret ballot initial proxy assignment stage. It could make possible the election of very highly representative assemblies, with no reliance on party systems being necessary. Yet it is not a "pure election method," it incorporates a deliberative phase (negotiation between "candidates" being an aspect of deliberation). Nevertheless it can produce *results* that allow the purest imaginable form of democracy even with the scale being enormous. Every vote is counted and counts. An Asset experiment was done by the Election Science Foundation, where a three-member steering committee was elected by 17 voters, such that every winner was either explicitly approved by every voter, or was approved by the candidate approved by the voter, within a few days of the "closing of the polls." To my knowledge, that was an historic result. Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
Re: [EM] A design flaw in the electoral system
Andrew Myers wrote: > I think we should be a little more careful here. Just because a > voter's vote has no effect on the outcome of an election does not > mean that the vote has no effect. By voting you are affecting the > margin of victory or defeat. And vote margins still matter to > politicians -- they signal whether the politicians are taking the > right positions and making convincing arguments. It's a real effect, I agree. I was in off-list discussions about this earlier. The first section (not yet drafted) will have to address exceptions such as this. But it would be difficult to base a counter-argument on this. There's a catch in that we're constrained to talking about a single unit of difference in the least significant digits of the result, or in the margin of victory. -- Michael Allan Toronto, +1 416-699-9528 http://zelea.com/ Andrew Myers wrote: > On 7/22/64 2:59 PM, Michael Allan wrote: > > Dear Juho and Fred, > > > >>> Your vote never made a difference. Most people feel uncomfortable > >>> or perplexed in this knowledge, and I think the feeling indicates > >>> that something's wrong. > > > > Juho Laatu wrote: > >> I'm not sure that most people feel uncomfortable with this. Many > >> have learned to live as part of the surrounding society, and they > >> don't expect their vote to be the one that should decide between two > >> alternatives. > > > > I certainly never expected my own vote to be decisive in an election. > > But knowing it has *no* effect on the outcome? This is unexpected and > > makes me uneasy. (more below) > > I think we should be a little more careful here. Just because a voter's > vote has no effect on the outcome of an election does not mean that the > vote has no effect. By voting you are affecting the margin of victory > or defeat. And vote margins still matter to politicians -- they signal > whether the politicians are taking the right positions and making > convincing arguments. > > -- Andrew Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
Re: [EM] A design flaw in the electoral system
On 7.10.2011, at 12.19, Michael Allan wrote: > Imagine one person is nodding > in agreement to a proposal, while another is shaking her head. > We could ask, "What effect did this voter *as such* > have on the decision that was reached, or anything that followed from > it?" In most cases, the answer would be incalculable, tied up in a > web of cause and effect that plays out endlessly. We might say it was > "boundless", or that it hovered somewhere between zero and infinity. > > In further reply to Juho, I would offer this indeterminacy as an > alternative to the apparent dilemma of no effect vs. decisive effect. Yes, there are many additional factors. Already a vote without any discussions between voters can be seen as a part of a complex process. At lest the input that the voter got was complex, even if the voter did not produce any "output" in his environment. Also the margin of the victory will be meaningful like Andrew Myers said. And the voter himself could be already thinking about the next election. In order to win then, every single additional vote in this election may be important. Juho Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
Re: [EM] A design flaw in the electoral system
Hi Juho, > Yes, there are many additional factors. Already a vote without any > discussions between voters can be seen as a part of a complex > process. At lest the input that the voter got was complex, even if > the voter did not produce any "output" in his environment. Also the > margin of the victory will be meaningful like Andrew Myers said. ... Granted that a margin of victory has effects in the objective world, it does not follow that an individual vote also has effects. Or at least Andrew does not appear to be claiming this. > ... And the voter himself could be already thinking about the next > election. In order to win then, every single additional vote in this > election may be important. Again, that does not seem to follow. We are still confronted with a measurable effect of zero, as empirical science can show: 1. Take the last election in which you voted, and look at its outcome (P). Who got into office? 2. Subtract your vote from that election. 3. Recalculate the outcome without your vote (Q). 4. Look at the difference between P and Q. 5. Repeat for all the elections you ever participated in. Your vote never made a difference. My vote never made a differerence. Others: did your vote ever make a difference? If you (or I) have any political freedom in the face of state power and laws, then it cannot possibly come from voting in elections. -- Michael Allan Toronto, +1 416-699-9528 http://zelea.com/ Juho Laatu wrote: > On 7.10.2011, at 12.19, Michael Allan wrote: > > > Imagine one person is nodding > > in agreement to a proposal, while another is shaking her head. > > > We could ask, "What effect did this voter *as such* > > have on the decision that was reached, or anything that followed from > > it?" In most cases, the answer would be incalculable, tied up in a > > web of cause and effect that plays out endlessly. We might say it was > > "boundless", or that it hovered somewhere between zero and infinity. > > > > In further reply to Juho, I would offer this indeterminacy as an > > alternative to the apparent dilemma of no effect vs. decisive effect. > > Yes, there are many additional factors. Already a vote without any > discussions between voters can be seen as a part of a complex > process. At lest the input that the voter got was complex, even if > the voter did not produce any "output" in his environment. Also the > margin of the victory will be meaningful like Andrew Myers said. And > the voter himself could be already thinking about the next > election. In order to win then, every single additional vote in this > election may be important. > Juho Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
Re: [EM] A design flaw in the electoral system
True. My vote has probably not made any difference in any of the (large) elections that I have ever participated. But on the other hand, was that the intention of the election? Probably not. I guess the intention was to elect those alternatives that had wide support. Allowing me to change the winner (with any significant probability) would have violated the principles of democracy. > If you (or I) have any political freedom in the face of state power > and laws, then it cannot possibly come from voting in elections. I think I had my fair share of power (1 / number of voters). (One more possible explanation is that the politicians were at least afraid of me voting against them, and that's why they did what I wanted them to do.) Juho On 14.10.2011, at 20.39, Michael Allan wrote: > Hi Juho, > >> Yes, there are many additional factors. Already a vote without any >> discussions between voters can be seen as a part of a complex >> process. At lest the input that the voter got was complex, even if >> the voter did not produce any "output" in his environment. Also the >> margin of the victory will be meaningful like Andrew Myers said. ... > > Granted that a margin of victory has effects in the objective world, > it does not follow that an individual vote also has effects. Or at > least Andrew does not appear to be claiming this. > >> ... And the voter himself could be already thinking about the next >> election. In order to win then, every single additional vote in this >> election may be important. > > Again, that does not seem to follow. We are still confronted with a > measurable effect of zero, as empirical science can show: > > 1. Take the last election in which you voted, and look at its > outcome (P). Who got into office? > 2. Subtract your vote from that election. > 3. Recalculate the outcome without your vote (Q). > 4. Look at the difference between P and Q. > 5. Repeat for all the elections you ever participated in. > Your vote never made a difference. My vote never made a > differerence. Others: did your vote ever make a difference? > > If you (or I) have any political freedom in the face of state power > and laws, then it cannot possibly come from voting in elections. > > -- > Michael Allan > > Toronto, +1 416-699-9528 > http://zelea.com/ > > > Juho Laatu wrote: >> On 7.10.2011, at 12.19, Michael Allan wrote: >> >>> Imagine one person is nodding >>> in agreement to a proposal, while another is shaking her head. >> >>> We could ask, "What effect did this voter *as such* >>> have on the decision that was reached, or anything that followed from >>> it?" In most cases, the answer would be incalculable, tied up in a >>> web of cause and effect that plays out endlessly. We might say it was >>> "boundless", or that it hovered somewhere between zero and infinity. >>> >>> In further reply to Juho, I would offer this indeterminacy as an >>> alternative to the apparent dilemma of no effect vs. decisive effect. >> >> Yes, there are many additional factors. Already a vote without any >> discussions between voters can be seen as a part of a complex >> process. At lest the input that the voter got was complex, even if >> the voter did not produce any "output" in his environment. Also the >> margin of the victory will be meaningful like Andrew Myers said. And >> the voter himself could be already thinking about the next >> election. In order to win then, every single additional vote in this >> election may be important. > >> Juho > > Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
Re: [EM] A design flaw in the electoral system
Juho Laatu wrote: > True. My vote has probably not made any difference in any of the > (large) elections that I have ever participated. ... You are not really in doubt, are you? You would remember if your vote made a difference. > I think I had my fair share of power (1 / number of voters). Well, if the vote makes no difference, then it has no power. Its power could not be 1/N, in any case; it is either zero (no effect) or something closer to N (decisive). But a decisive vote is exceedingly rare and you're unlikely to cast one in your lifetime. > (One more possible explanation is that the politicians were at least > afraid of me voting against them, and that's why they did what I > wanted them to do.) Politicians won't be concerned about an individual vote, of course, because it makes no difference. I think you were generalizing here to other voters, but the argument hinges on the individual vote. That vote *ought* to have an effect, but it does not. The situation is rightly difficult to accept. Whatever political liberty you (or I) can salvage in the face of state power, it cannot come from that vote. -- Michael Allan Toronto, +1 416-699-9528 http://zelea.com/ Juho Laatu wrote: > True. My vote has probably not made any difference in any of the > (large) elections that I have ever participated. But on the other > hand, was that the intention of the election? Probably not. I guess > the intention was to elect those alternatives that had wide > support. Allowing me to change the winner (with any significant > probability) would have violated the principles of democracy. > > If you (or I) have any political freedom in the face of state power > > and laws, then it cannot possibly come from voting in elections. > > I think I had my fair share of power (1 / number of voters). > > (One more possible explanation is that the politicians were at least > afraid of me voting against them, and that's why they did what I > wanted them to do.) > Juho > > On 14.10.2011, at 20.39, Michael Allan wrote: > > > Hi Juho, > > > >> Yes, there are many additional factors. Already a vote without any > >> discussions between voters can be seen as a part of a complex > >> process. At lest the input that the voter got was complex, even if > >> the voter did not produce any "output" in his environment. Also the > >> margin of the victory will be meaningful like Andrew Myers said. ... > > > > Granted that a margin of victory has effects in the objective world, > > it does not follow that an individual vote also has effects. Or at > > least Andrew does not appear to be claiming this. > > > >> ... And the voter himself could be already thinking about the next > >> election. In order to win then, every single additional vote in this > >> election may be important. > > > > Again, that does not seem to follow. We are still confronted with a > > measurable effect of zero, as empirical science can show: > > > > 1. Take the last election in which you voted, and look at its > > outcome (P). Who got into office? > > 2. Subtract your vote from that election. > > 3. Recalculate the outcome without your vote (Q). > > 4. Look at the difference between P and Q. > > 5. Repeat for all the elections you ever participated in. > > Your vote never made a difference. My vote never made a > > differerence. Others: did your vote ever make a difference? > > > > If you (or I) have any political freedom in the face of state power > > and laws, then it cannot possibly come from voting in elections. > > > > -- > > Michael Allan > > > > Toronto, +1 416-699-9528 > > http://zelea.com/ > > > > > > Juho Laatu wrote: > >> On 7.10.2011, at 12.19, Michael Allan wrote: > >> > >>> Imagine one person is nodding > >>> in agreement to a proposal, while another is shaking her head. > >> > >>> We could ask, "What effect did this voter *as such* > >>> have on the decision that was reached, or anything that followed from > >>> it?" In most cases, the answer would be incalculable, tied up in a > >>> web of cause and effect that plays out endlessly. We might say it was > >>> "boundless", or that it hovered somewhere between zero and infinity. > >>> > >>> In further reply to Juho, I would offer this indeterminacy as an > >>> alternative to the apparent dilemma of no effect vs. decisive effect. > >> > >> Yes, there are many additional factors. Already a vote without any > >> discussions between voters can be seen as a part of a complex > >> process. At lest the input that the voter got was complex, even if > >> the voter did not produce any "output" in his environment. Also the > >> margin of the victory will be meaningful like Andrew Myers said. And > >> the voter himself could be already thinking about the next > >> election. In order to win then, every single additional vote in this > >> election may be important. > > > >> Juho Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
Re: [EM] A design flaw in the electoral system
On 17.10.2011, at 23.33, Michael Allan wrote: > Juho Laatu wrote: >> True. My vote has probably not made any difference in any of the >> (large) elections that I have ever participated. ... > > You are not really in doubt, are you? You would remember if your vote > made a difference. Most elections that I have participated in have been multi-winner elections. It is possible that my favourite has won with one vote but nobody has told me about that. I have not often checked the final results in that level of detail. It is also possible that my single vote has changed the proportional shares of seats of the parties. It is more probable (but not guaranteed) that I would have heard about such a tight race. > >> I think I had my fair share of power (1 / number of voters). > > Well, if the vote makes no difference, then it has no power. Its > power could not be 1/N, in any case; it is either zero (no effect) or > something closer to N (decisive). But a decisive vote is exceedingly > rare and you're unlikely to cast one in your lifetime. In multi-party elections also other numbers than 0 and 1 (or N) are possible. If we assume that the whole election had an impact (1 or N), but no single vote was decisive, then who had the power? The politicians also fought for my vote and therefore they drafted some plans and made some promises, so I feel that my vote (or the fact that I can vote and I voted) had some power (even if my vote was not a decisive vote). Maybe the election was fought (and plans for the future made and presented) already before the election day and before the votes were counted. Maybe the election results just verified what had already been decided just before the election day. > >> (One more possible explanation is that the politicians were at least >> afraid of me voting against them, and that's why they did what I >> wanted them to do.) > > Politicians won't be concerned about an individual vote, of course, > because it makes no difference. Do you mean that since no individual vote makes a difference the politicians should stay home and not spend time and money in the campaigns (shaking my hand and promising me things)? > I think you were generalizing here to > other voters, but the argument hinges on the individual vote. > > That vote *ought* to have an effect, but it does not. The situation > is rightly difficult to accept. Whatever political liberty you (or I) > can salvage in the face of state power, it cannot come from that vote. Maybe the explanation that I gave above, works here too. Maybe the key was the campaign time and programs and promises there. My best explanation is however still to think in terms of "how can we influence" and not "how can I influence", when we consider whether we should vote in the next election or not. Also the fact that we vote is important since it keeps the politicians alert. Juho > > -- > Michael Allan > > Toronto, +1 416-699-9528 > http://zelea.com/ > > > Juho Laatu wrote: >> True. My vote has probably not made any difference in any of the >> (large) elections that I have ever participated. But on the other >> hand, was that the intention of the election? Probably not. I guess >> the intention was to elect those alternatives that had wide >> support. Allowing me to change the winner (with any significant >> probability) would have violated the principles of democracy. > >>> If you (or I) have any political freedom in the face of state power >>> and laws, then it cannot possibly come from voting in elections. >> >> I think I had my fair share of power (1 / number of voters). >> >> (One more possible explanation is that the politicians were at least >> afraid of me voting against them, and that's why they did what I >> wanted them to do.) > >> Juho >> >> On 14.10.2011, at 20.39, Michael Allan wrote: >> >>> Hi Juho, >>> Yes, there are many additional factors. Already a vote without any discussions between voters can be seen as a part of a complex process. At lest the input that the voter got was complex, even if the voter did not produce any "output" in his environment. Also the margin of the victory will be meaningful like Andrew Myers said. ... >>> >>> Granted that a margin of victory has effects in the objective world, >>> it does not follow that an individual vote also has effects. Or at >>> least Andrew does not appear to be claiming this. >>> ... And the voter himself could be already thinking about the next election. In order to win then, every single additional vote in this election may be important. >>> >>> Again, that does not seem to follow. We are still confronted with a >>> measurable effect of zero, as empirical science can show: >>> >>> 1. Take the last election in which you voted, and look at its >>>outcome (P). Who got into office? >>> 2. Subtract your vote from that election. >>> 3. Recalculate the outcome without your vote (Q). >>> 4. Look
Re: [EM] A design flaw in the electoral system
Hi Juho, Thanks for giving me a chance to explain. It's a difficult thesis to summarize. Nobody has admitted to being convinced by it yet. At the same time, no serious flaws have been found. > If we assume that the whole election had an impact (1 or N), but no > single vote was decisive, then who had the power? (You're right of course. The power to turn over the government is something on the order of 1 in this algebra, and not N as I said.) If the answer were "nobody", then it would mean a massive power vacuum. Imagine all the political parties are disbanded by a heavenly decree and an election is called. That election would proceed in something of a power vacuum owing to the zero power ballots. The historical part of my thesis (if original) will argue that "the sum of these [zero power ballots] across the population amounts to a power vacuum, which, in mid to late Victorian times, led to the effective collapse of the electoral system and the rise of a mass party system. Today, the organized parties make the decisions and exercise the political freedom that was intended for the individual citizens." That's just a hypothesis. We don't know with any certainty who is holding the electoral power, or how it's distributed. This is perhaps the most serious failure, however, because we should know for certain. We should know it's the electors and nobody else. > > Politicians won't be concerned about an individual vote, of course, > > because it makes no difference. > > Do you mean that since no individual vote makes a difference the > politicians should stay home and not spend time and money in the > campaigns (shaking my hand and promising me things)? Your vote never helped them and it's unlikely to help them in future. To measure the effect of your vote, I think we must do the experiment: 1. Take the last election in which you voted, and look at its outcome (P). How did it affect the politicians? 2. Subtract your vote from that election. 3. Recalculate the outcome without your vote (Q). 4. Look at the difference between P and Q. 5. Repeat for all the elections you ever participated in. Your vote never affected any politicians. We just had an election here in Ontario. My member of parliament came and knocked at my door and asked for my vote. I told him he had it. He thanked me and shook my hand, then proceeded to my neighbour's. The next day I voted for him. That night, he was re-elected by a margin of 5,000 votes. My own vote had no effect, of course. (Only 49% voted in that election, which is a record low for Ontario.) > My best explanation is however still to think in terms of "how can > we influence" and not "how can I influence", when we consider > whether we should vote in the next election or not. Also the fact > that we vote is important since it keeps the politicians alert. I agree, I think a citizen has a responsibility to vote. Voting is a precious right, won by sacrifices. But experts have a responsibility too. The electoral system is compromised by a design flaw so severe that a citizen's vote is rendered meaningless, and we cannot say with any certainty who is making the electoral decisions. -- Michael Allan Toronto, +1 416-699-9528 http://zelea.com/ Juho Laatu wrote: > On 17.10.2011, at 23.33, Michael Allan wrote: > > > Juho Laatu wrote: > >> True. My vote has probably not made any difference in any of the > >> (large) elections that I have ever participated. ... > > > > You are not really in doubt, are you? You would remember if your vote > > made a difference. > > Most elections that I have participated in have been multi-winner elections. > It is possible that my favourite has won with one vote but nobody has told me > about that. I have not often checked the final results in that level of > detail. It is also possible that my single vote has changed the proportional > shares of seats of the parties. It is more probable (but not guaranteed) that > I would have heard about such a tight race. > > > > >> I think I had my fair share of power (1 / number of voters). > > > > Well, if the vote makes no difference, then it has no power. Its > > power could not be 1/N, in any case; it is either zero (no effect) or > > something closer to N (decisive). But a decisive vote is exceedingly > > rare and you're unlikely to cast one in your lifetime. > > In multi-party elections also other numbers than 0 and 1 (or N) are possible. > > If we assume that the whole election had an impact (1 or N), but no single > vote was decisive, then who had the power? > > The politicians also fought for my vote and therefore they drafted some plans > and made some promises, so I feel that my vote (or the fact that I can vote > and I voted) had some power (even if my vote was not a decisive vote). Maybe > the election was fought (and plans for the future made and presented) already > before the election day and before the votes were counted. Maybe the
Re: [EM] A design flaw in the electoral system
On 18.10.2011, at 5.57, Michael Allan wrote: > Hi Juho, > > Thanks for giving me a chance to explain. It's a difficult thesis to > summarize. Nobody has admitted to being convinced by it yet. At the > same time, no serious flaws have been found. Yes, also I have not found any actual flaws, but what we need, I think, is a common terminology. There is a paradox here, and agreed terms should be available to manage this situation, e.g. to separate concepts "vote has influence" and "note has no influence" that may be true at the same time (if one uses terms in some no good way as I did here). > >> If we assume that the whole election had an impact (1 or N), but no >> single vote was decisive, then who had the power? > > (You're right of course. The power to turn over the government is > something on the order of 1 in this algebra, and not N as I said.) If > the answer were "nobody", then it would mean a massive power vacuum. > Imagine all the political parties are disbanded by a heavenly decree > and an election is called. That election would proceed in something > of a power vacuum owing to the zero power ballots. > > The historical part of my thesis (if original) will argue that "the > sum of these [zero power ballots] across the population amounts to a > power vacuum, which, in mid to late Victorian times, led to the > effective collapse of the electoral system and the rise of a mass > party system. Today, the organized parties make the decisions and > exercise the political freedom that was intended for the individual > citizens." > > That's just a hypothesis. We don't know with any certainty who is > holding the electoral power, or how it's distributed. This is perhaps > the most serious failure, however, because we should know for certain. > We should know it's the electors and nobody else. I think there actually is a vacuum, and many voters don't vote because of that. Some voters may actually think that the power that they have is too small to bother to vote. Some may indeed think that probably their vote will not be a decisive vote. Some voters may think that politicians will never change which ever one of them is in power. Some have lost their trust in fellow voters. New better concepts and better understanding of the process might help. > >>> Politicians won't be concerned about an individual vote, of course, >>> because it makes no difference. >> >> Do you mean that since no individual vote makes a difference the >> politicians should stay home and not spend time and money in the >> campaigns (shaking my hand and promising me things)? > > Your vote never helped them and it's unlikely to help them in future. > To measure the effect of your vote, I think we must do the experiment: > > 1. Take the last election in which you voted, and look at its > outcome (P). How did it affect the politicians? > 2. Subtract your vote from that election. > 3. Recalculate the outcome without your vote (Q). > 4. Look at the difference between P and Q. > 5. Repeat for all the elections you ever participated in. > Your vote never affected any politicians. My vote never did, but maybe the threat that I and some others might vote "wrong" maybe did. > > We just had an election here in Ontario. My member of parliament came > and knocked at my door and asked for my vote. I told him he had it. > He thanked me and shook my hand, then proceeded to my neighbour's. > The next day I voted for him. That night, he was re-elected by a > margin of 5,000 votes. My own vote had no effect, of course. (Only > 49% voted in that election, which is a record low for Ontario.) Maybe he didn't actually visit 5,000 persons, so maybe also he fought his campaign in vain :-). > >> My best explanation is however still to think in terms of "how can >> we influence" and not "how can I influence", when we consider >> whether we should vote in the next election or not. Also the fact >> that we vote is important since it keeps the politicians alert. > > I agree, I think a citizen has a responsibility to vote. Voting is a > precious right, won by sacrifices. But experts have a responsibility > too. The electoral system is compromised by a design flaw so severe > that a citizen's vote is rendered meaningless, and we cannot say with > any certainty who is making the electoral decisions. But maybe if you form a small club (or a large club (=party)) that discusses and finds an agreement on how to vote. Then maybe you get the power that you want. Juho > > -- > Michael Allan > > Toronto, +1 416-699-9528 > http://zelea.com/ > > > Juho Laatu wrote: >> On 17.10.2011, at 23.33, Michael Allan wrote: >> >>> Juho Laatu wrote: True. My vote has probably not made any difference in any of the (large) elections that I have ever participated. ... >>> >>> You are not really in doubt, are you? You would remember if your vote >>> made a difference. >> >> Most elections that I have participat
Re: [EM] A design flaw in the electoral system
Juho Laatu wrote: > Yes, also I have not found any actual flaws [in the thesis], but > what we need, I think, is a common terminology. There is a paradox > here, and agreed terms should be available to manage this situation, > e.g. to separate concepts "vote has influence" and "[v]ote has no > influence" that may be true at the same time (if one uses terms in > some no good way as I did here). The thesis would be invalid if it were expressing a paradox. But I see no paradox; only a situation that's difficult to accept on the one hand, and difficult to reject on the other. It looks more like a dilemma. This might be expected with a centuries old flaw that's woven into the fabric of society; it's a part of us in some sense. > I think there actually is a vacuum, and many voters don't vote > because of that. Some voters may actually think that the power that > they have is too small to bother to vote. Some may indeed think that > probably their vote will not be a decisive vote. Some voters may > think that politicians will never change which ever one of them is > in power. Some have lost their trust in fellow voters. New better > concepts and better understanding of the process might help. The better I understand the process the more failures I see. I have to suppress a tendency to exaggerate, because the failures aren't total and unqualified, and they do appear to originate in that one, simple flaw. It's not the "crooked timber of humanity" or anything that we have to learn to live with. It's just an error in the design of an electoral system that dates back to the 1700s, a design that no responsible engineer would sign off on, today. After understanding it, therefore, I think we must fix it. > > 1. Take the last election in which you voted, and look at its > > outcome (P). How did it affect the politicians? > > 2. Subtract your vote from that election. > > 3. Recalculate the outcome without your vote (Q). > > 4. Look at the difference between P and Q. > > 5. Repeat for all the elections you ever participated in. > > Your vote never affected any politicians. > > My vote never did, but maybe the threat that I and some others might > vote "wrong" maybe did. Yes, or even many others. The politician wants any and all votes, but never just a single vote. That's no help to him, of course. Only the individual voter cares about that single vote. Again, this disconnect of concerns is just one more expression of the basic design flaw. It seems to have penetrated all aspects of modern politics. > But maybe if you form a small club (or a large club (=party)) that > discusses and finds an agreement on how to vote. Then maybe you get > the power that you want. Only at the cost of political liberty. To allow a flaw in the electoral system to rule my actions would be to surrender to a contingency and immediately lose my freedom. My subsequent actions in the party would be more likely to confirm and consolidate that loss, than to redeem it. Man is born free; and everywhere he is in chains. One thinks himself the master of others, and still remains a greater slave than they. * We teach our children that a vote formalizes both power and equality, having learned ourselves that these are the two preconditions of political liberty. In abandoning my vote, I therefore abandon my fellow citizens and the one structural support of political liberty that the constitution guarantees. For lack of that support, any power I now aquire for myself in the party is liable to come at the expense of others, and serve only to make me a fitter instrument of the contingency that binds us all. My entire political career will be nothing but the expression of a poor technical design, a flaw still waiting to be corrected. I think we have to fix that flaw, not work around it. The failures we witness in society are themselves the work arounds. * The social contract, or principles of political right. 1762. http://ebooks.adelaide.edu.au/r/rousseau/jean_jacques/r864s/book1.html -- Michael Allan Toronto, +1 416-699-9528 http://zelea.com/ Juho Laatu wrote: > On 18.10.2011, at 5.57, Michael Allan wrote: > > > Hi Juho, > > > > Thanks for giving me a chance to explain. It's a difficult thesis to > > summarize. Nobody has admitted to being convinced by it yet. At the > > same time, no serious flaws have been found. > > Yes, also I have not found any actual flaws, but what we need, I think, is a > common terminology. There is a paradox here, and agreed terms should be > available to manage this situation, e.g. to separate concepts "vote has > influence" and "note has no influence" that may be true at the same time (if > one uses terms in some no good way as I did here). > > > > >> If we assume that the whole election had an impact (1 or N), but no > >> single vote was decisive, then who had the power? > > > > (You're right of course. The power to turn over the government is > > something
Re: [EM] A design flaw in the electoral system
On 19.10.2011, at 1.14, Michael Allan wrote: >> But maybe if you form a small club (or a large club (=party)) that >> discusses and finds an agreement on how to vote. Then maybe you get >> the power that you want. > > Only at the cost of political liberty. To allow a flaw in the > electoral system to rule my actions would be to surrender to a > contingency and immediately lose my freedom. One can do this also without tying oneself in one of the clubs. And one may have informal groups like a mailing list or a web site. This still keeps the freedom of the "my way" path. Also many electoral systems do their best in trying to hide the opinion of one voter from the others, and thereby support independent decision making. (If one strongly wants to find even better ways to influence with more than 1/N times the electorate power one can become active in politics and become a candidate and maybe a representative.) Juho Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
Re: [EM] A design flaw in the electoral system
Hi, Michael In describing the design flaw in the electoral process at: http://zelea.com/project/autonomy/a/fau/fau.xht#fla you say: "The formal aggregate of votes in the count engine does not correspond to an actual aggregate of voters in the social world. The individual votes were brought together to make a result, but the individual voters were not brought together as such to make a decision; therefore no valid decision can be extracted from the result." Bringing the individual voters together to make a decision is impractical in any community with more than a few people. Voting by ballot was adopted to remedy this problem. In the small communities that dominated the United States before the 19th century, democratic politics were primarily of the town meeting variety. In this environment, individuals participated in the discussion of community issues. Decisions were made by consensus, and, when consensus was not reached, by a 'show of hands'. When these methods became unwieldy or impractical, decisions were made by ballot-type voting. The question of 'voters being separated from their votes' was not significant. What made the process democratic was not the method of voting but that the people discussed the issues themselves and decided which were of sufficient import to be decided by finding the will of the majority. When the people voted, they voted on matters that were important to them. Over time, that changed. Gradually, advocates of the various perspectives played a larger role in the process, forming factions and attracting followers. As their power grew (through the size of their following) they evolved into political parties, bent on seizing power. George Washington, with remarkable foresight, warned "in the most solemn manner against the baneful effects of the spirit of party". He called partisanship an unquenchable fire that "demands a uniform vigilance to prevent its bursting into a flame, lest, instead of warming, it should consume". He predicted that political parties were likely to become "potent engines, by which cunning, ambitious, and unprincipled men will be enabled to subvert the power of the people and to usurp for themselves the reins of government"[1]. The tragedy of democracy in America is that our intellectual community failed to anticipate and forestall the 'potent engines' that robbed the people of their birthright. Instead, we have been consumed by the parties Washington so accurately foretold. In our time, political parties are the sole arbiters of all political issues. The public is excluded from the process. That is the flaw in our political system. For a political process to be democratic, the people must decide what is important and must choose the best advocates of their interests to represent them in their government. How many among us have the wit to recognize the need for such a system? Fred Gohlke 1) http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/washing.asp Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
Re: [EM] A design flaw in the electoral system
Juho Laatu wrote: > > > But maybe if you form a small club (or a large club (=party)) > > > that discusses and finds an agreement on how to vote. Then maybe > > > you get the power that you want. > Michael Allan wrote: > > Only at the cost of political liberty. To allow a flaw in the > > electoral system to rule my actions would be to surrender to a > > contingency and immediately lose my freedom. ... > One can do this also without tying oneself in one of the clubs. And > one may have informal groups like a mailing list or a web site. This > still keeps the freedom of the "my way" path. Only at the cost of power, and thus again liberty. I think my reply did answer you here. I went on to say, "We teach our children that a vote formalizes both power and equality, having learned ourselves that these are the two preconditions of political liberty. In abandoning my vote, I therefore abandon my fellow citizens and the one structural support of political liberty that the constitution guarantees." [1] Man is born free; and everywhere he is in chains. One thinks himself the master of others, and still remains a greater slave than they. [2] For these reasons, I see no political liberty in either of the approaches you suggest. I see only an abandondment of electoral power in a small club, itself powerless against a mass party; or the siezure of power at the expense of others through such a party - approaches therefore more likely to lead to bondage than to liberty. The constitution already allows for support of political liberty in the form of an electoral vote that formalizes a share of power and concomitant equality. Why abandon that support so lightly? [3] > Also many electoral systems do their best in trying to hide the > opinion of one voter from the others, and thereby support > independent decision making. Really? I think the system provides no such support, because voting comes at the end of the decision process. The decider is separated from the means of decision, which is precisely the design flaw. Even the humble worker bee has decision support *while* the decision process unfolds, and not after. If she were not free to change her "vote" while visiting other locations as suggested by her co-workers *through their votes*, then the colony as a whole would fail to make a good decision. If honey bees had a decision system as flawed as ours, then we'd have no honey bees. [4] Our flawed electoral system witholds its decision support from the electors till the very end of the decision process. This is precisely why the vote is powerless and probably how it came to pass that "the organized parties make the decisions and exercise the electoral power and political freedom that were intended for the citizens." You admit to seeing no flaw in this thesis; you will therefore also admit that the conclusion (unpleasant as it is) seems to be true? [5] > (If one strongly wants to find even better ways to influence with > more than 1/N times the electorate power one can become active in > politics and become a candidate and maybe a representative.) Recall that we already discussed the power of one's vote. Didn't we measure it at zero, not 1/N? The vote has no effect on the political outcome of the election, therefore it has no power. [6] [1] http://lists.electorama.com/pipermail/election-methods-electorama.com/2011-October/028690.html [2] The social contract, or principles of political right. 1762. http://ebooks.adelaide.edu.au/r/rousseau/jean_jacques/r864s/book1.html [3] This reminds me of a scene from this Robert Bolt screenplay: http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/A_Man_for_All_Seasons_%281966_film%29 Roper: I'd cut down every law in England to do that! More: Oh? And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned 'round on you, where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat? This country's planted thick with laws from coast to coast - man's laws, not God's - and if you cut them down - and you're just the man to do it - do you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then? Yes, I'd give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety's sake. Likewise, we cannot stand upright without the structural support of the electoral vote. For lack of it, we are lying prostrate in obedience to powers beyond our control. [4] Warren Smith mentioned bees, which got me thinking of this. http://lists.electorama.com/pipermail/election-methods-electorama.com/2011-October/028575.html [5] http://zelea.com/project/autonomy/a/fau/fau.xht [6] http://lists.electorama.com/pipermail/election-methods-electorama.com/2011-October/028677.html -- Michael Allan Toronto, +1 416-699-9528 http://zelea.com/ Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
Re: [EM] A design flaw in the electoral system
Hi Fred, > Bringing the individual voters together to make a decision is > impractical in any community with more than a few people. Voting by > ballot was adopted to remedy this problem. That's true, thank you for pointing out the error. I imply that the electoral system brings the votes physically "together", but really it does not. A more accurate word is "intercommunicate", and I've corrected the passage to read: The formal aggregate of votes in the count engine does not correspond to an actual aggregate of voters in the social world. The individual votes intercommunicate to make a result, but the individual voters do not intercommunicate *as such* to make a decision; therefore no valid decision can be extracted from the result. It is often impractical for voters to communicate through physical proximity. But the invalidity only arises because they do not communicate by *any* means; or rather, because such communication is systematically impaired, as described below. > In the small communities that dominated the United States before the > 19th century, democratic politics were primarily of the town meeting > variety. In this environment, individuals participated in the > discussion of community issues. Decisions were made by consensus, > and, when consensus was not reached, by a 'show of hands'. When > these methods became unwieldy or impractical, decisions were made by > ballot-type voting. The question of 'voters being separated from > their votes' was not significant. I still maintain that the introduction of a ballot that (unlike hands) is physically separate from the elector is a technical design flaw. It is not necessarily a significant flaw at the very moment of its introduction; but even still, an elector without a ballot is formally not a voter. It follows that communication among voters *as such* is made impossible. Moreover, if there is grounds to suspect that actual voter-like communication among the electors is now hindered, then this suspicion alone is enough to invalidate the election results. > In our time, political parties are the sole arbiters of all > political issues. The public is excluded from the process. That is > the flaw in our political system. Except that no system design explicitly or immediately enforces that arbitration, or that exclusion. So we cannot rightly claim it as a system design flaw. It may be a consequence of such a flaw (as I think), or it may be an unrelated fact. Some heat is taken off the parties if they're shown to be consequences of a technical flaw. The flaw and its attendant failures are not their fault, after all; they were caught up in the contingency of it like the rest of society. For that reason, too, we might be able to learn things from the parties. When a complex and adaptive system fails, its modes of failure can sometimes "invent" partial solutions to the underlying problem. So we should not be too surprised to find much that is instructive in the parties. Note for instance how they effect structural changes by extra-constitutional means. -- Michael Allan Toronto, +1 416-699-9528 http://zelea.com/ Fred Gohlke wrote: > Hi, Michael > > In describing the design flaw in the electoral process at: > > http://zelea.com/project/autonomy/a/fau/fau.xht#fla > > you say: > >"The formal aggregate of votes in the count engine does not > correspond to an actual aggregate of voters in the social > world. The individual votes were brought together to make a > result, but the individual voters were not brought together as > such to make a decision; therefore no valid decision can be > extracted from the result." > > Bringing the individual voters together to make a decision is > impractical in any community with more than a few people. Voting by > ballot was adopted to remedy this problem. > > In the small communities that dominated the United States before the > 19th century, democratic politics were primarily of the town meeting > variety. In this environment, individuals participated in the > discussion of community issues. Decisions were made by consensus, and, > when consensus was not reached, by a 'show of hands'. When these > methods became unwieldy or impractical, decisions were made by > ballot-type voting. The question of 'voters being separated from their > votes' was not significant. > > What made the process democratic was not the method of voting but that > the people discussed the issues themselves and decided which were of > sufficient import to be decided by finding the will of the majority. > When the people voted, they voted on matters that were important to them. > > Over time, that changed. > > Gradually, advocates of the various perspectives played a larger role in > the process, forming factions and attracting followers. As their power > grew (through the size of their following) they evolved into political > parties, bent on seizing power
Re: [EM] A design flaw in the electoral system
I thought / think that - voluntary participation in whatever clubs, with possibility to influence others, and with possibility to vote in line with the club discussions or even agree to vote that way does not limit one's liberty to do whatever one wants - one limitation to liberty could be the fact that one has to co-operate or there must be people that think the same way, but that is just the realization of the fact that one is not a dictator - secret ballots (that hide the fact which party and/or person you voted) support liberty to vote the way one wants - I can't say that I agree with the conclusions of the thesis because I don't know what they are - 1/N is maybe a better (although not perfect) estimate of the power that one voter holds than 0 Juho On 21.10.2011, at 0.48, Michael Allan wrote: > Juho Laatu wrote: But maybe if you form a small club (or a large club (=party)) that discusses and finds an agreement on how to vote. Then maybe you get the power that you want. > >> Michael Allan wrote: >>> Only at the cost of political liberty. To allow a flaw in the >>> electoral system to rule my actions would be to surrender to a >>> contingency and immediately lose my freedom. ... > >> One can do this also without tying oneself in one of the clubs. And >> one may have informal groups like a mailing list or a web site. This >> still keeps the freedom of the "my way" path. > > Only at the cost of power, and thus again liberty. I think my reply > did answer you here. I went on to say, "We teach our children that a > vote formalizes both power and equality, having learned ourselves that > these are the two preconditions of political liberty. In abandoning > my vote, I therefore abandon my fellow citizens and the one structural > support of political liberty that the constitution guarantees." [1] > > Man is born free; and everywhere he is in chains. One thinks > himself the master of others, and still remains a greater slave > than they. [2] > > For these reasons, I see no political liberty in either of the > approaches you suggest. I see only an abandondment of electoral power > in a small club, itself powerless against a mass party; or the siezure > of power at the expense of others through such a party - approaches > therefore more likely to lead to bondage than to liberty. The > constitution already allows for support of political liberty in the > form of an electoral vote that formalizes a share of power and > concomitant equality. Why abandon that support so lightly? [3] > >> Also many electoral systems do their best in trying to hide the >> opinion of one voter from the others, and thereby support >> independent decision making. > > Really? I think the system provides no such support, because voting > comes at the end of the decision process. The decider is separated > from the means of decision, which is precisely the design flaw. Even > the humble worker bee has decision support *while* the decision > process unfolds, and not after. If she were not free to change her > "vote" while visiting other locations as suggested by her co-workers > *through their votes*, then the colony as a whole would fail to make a > good decision. If honey bees had a decision system as flawed as ours, > then we'd have no honey bees. [4] > > Our flawed electoral system witholds its decision support from the > electors till the very end of the decision process. This is precisely > why the vote is powerless and probably how it came to pass that "the > organized parties make the decisions and exercise the electoral power > and political freedom that were intended for the citizens." You admit > to seeing no flaw in this thesis; you will therefore also admit that > the conclusion (unpleasant as it is) seems to be true? [5] > >> (If one strongly wants to find even better ways to influence with >> more than 1/N times the electorate power one can become active in >> politics and become a candidate and maybe a representative.) > > Recall that we already discussed the power of one's vote. Didn't we > measure it at zero, not 1/N? The vote has no effect on the political > outcome of the election, therefore it has no power. [6] > > > [1] > http://lists.electorama.com/pipermail/election-methods-electorama.com/2011-October/028690.html > > [2] The social contract, or principles of political right. 1762. > http://ebooks.adelaide.edu.au/r/rousseau/jean_jacques/r864s/book1.html > > [3] This reminds me of a scene from this Robert Bolt screenplay: > http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/A_Man_for_All_Seasons_%281966_film%29 > > Roper: I'd cut down every law in England to do that! > More: Oh? And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned >'round on you, where would you hide, Roper, the laws all >being flat? This country's planted thick with laws from >coast to coast - man's laws, not God's - and if you cut >them down
Re: [EM] A design flaw in the electoral system
Hi Juho, Juho Laatu wrote: > I thought / think that > - voluntary participation in whatever clubs, with possibility to > influence others, and with possibility to vote in line with the > club discussions or even agree to vote that way does not limit > one's liberty to do whatever one wants > - one limitation to liberty could be the fact that one has to > co-operate or there must be people that think the same way, but > that is just the realization of the fact that one is not a > dictator > - secret ballots (that hide the fact which party and/or person you > voted) support liberty to vote the way one wants I probably misunderstood you earlier. As stated above, I see no inconsistency between your thoughts (which seem true) and the thesis as I understand it. > - I can't say that I agree with the conclusions of the thesis > because I don't know what they are As I confessed, "It's a difficult thesis to summarize. Nobody has admitted to being convinced by it yet. At the same time, no serious flaws have been found." To which you replied, "Yes, also I have not found any actual flaws" [1]. Here is my latest attempt at a brief summary with conclusions: [2] An individual vote in a general election has no meaningful effect in the objective world, and no effect whatsoever on the political outcome of the election; whether the vote is cast or not, the outcome is the same regardless. Beneath this fact lies an extensive structural fault that emerges here and there in society as a series of persistent discontinuities between facts and norms, or contents and forms. I trace the cause of this fault to a technical design flaw in the electoral system wherein the elector is physically separated from the ballot. Crucially, this separation removes the elector cum voter (the active decider) from the means and product of decision. It thereby disengages the citizen from constitutional electoral power and its concomitant supports of equality. I argue that the sum of these disengagements across the population amounts to a power vacuum, which, in mid to late Victorian times, led to the effective collapse of the electoral system and the rise of a mass party system. Today, the organized parties make the decisions and exercise the electoral power and political freedom that were intended for the citizens. I now ask you to accept these conclusions as apparent or provisional truths, provided you still see no flaws in the supporting argument. > - 1/N is maybe a better (although not perfect) estimate of the power > that one voter holds than 0 The value 1/N appears to be erroneous. It is refuted by empirical evidence that measures the value at exactly zero. Again, the experimental method is: 1. Take the last election in which you voted, and look at its political outcome (P). Who got into office? 2. Subtract your vote from that election. 3. Recalculate the outcome without your vote (Q). 4. Look at the difference between P and Q. 5. Repeat for all the elections you ever participated in. Your vote never made a difference. Therefore the power is measured at exactly zero. Theory suggests values on the order of 1 are also expected, though only in rare situations that are unlikely to occur in your own lifetime [3]. Values of 1/N, on the other hand, are neither possible in theory nor measured in fact. If they were, then I agree it would indicate a flaw in the thesis. Though the thesis is certainly fallible at points, no flaw has been discovered to date. While this remains the case, I request that you accept the thesis as valid and its conclusions as apparent or provisional truths. I appeal to your intelligence and sense of fairness here; is this not a reasonable and fair request? [1] http://lists.electorama.com/pipermail/election-methods-electorama.com/2011-October/028683.html [2] http://zelea.com/project/autonomy/a/fau/fau.xht [3] The smaller the election, the more likely it will be decided by a single vote. In a mid-sized election for a US state legislator, the mean probability is roughly 9/4 = 0.00022 [4]. Assuming a 2 year term of office, this translates to an average interval of 8889 years between such elections. The structural fault may be exposed by pulling this into the human context of the argument: [5] I fear I would not live long enough to see an election in which my vote affected the outcome, or anything else in this world. Yet every day I am affected by the decisions of those in power, and every day I must obey the laws. I look around and I note that my fellow citizens are in the same situation as I, each affected by administrative powers and laws over which he (or she) has no comparable influence. It was not supposed to be this way. https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/private/liberationtech/2011-September/002117.html [4]
Re: [EM] A design flaw in the electoral system
On 22.10.2011, at 1.42, Michael Allan wrote: > Here is my latest attempt at a brief > summary with conclusions: [2] > > An individual vote in a general election has no meaningful effect in > the objective world, and no effect whatsoever on the political > outcome of the election; whether the vote is cast or not, the > outcome is the same regardless. True, if one considers only the formal output of the election and says "with high probability no effect in large elections if changed". I don't agree with "no effect whatsoever on the political outcome". Only the technical outcome is unlikely to change if one vote changes in large elections. > Beneath this fact lies an extensive > structural fault This is not a "flaw", but I wouldn't say "extensive structural fault" but something milder. > that emerges here and there in society as a series > of persistent discontinuities between facts and norms, or contents > and forms. I trace the cause of this fault to a technical design > flaw in the electoral system wherein the elector is physically > separated from the ballot. Crucially, this separation removes the > elector cum voter (the active decider) from the means and product of > decision. It thereby disengages the citizen from constitutional > electoral power and its concomitant supports of equality. I argue > that the sum of these disengagements across the population amounts > to a power vacuum, which, in mid to late Victorian times, led to the > effective collapse of the electoral system and the rise of a mass > party system. Today, the organized parties make the decisions and > exercise the electoral power and political freedom that were > intended for the citizens. This was a bit too difficult to comment. The meaning of separation and its impacts are not clear. (No flaws identified, mostly opinions.) > > I now ask you to accept these conclusions as apparent or provisional > truths, provided you still see no flaws in the supporting argument. Too vague for me to be accepted as a provisional truth. The technical analysis of the methods part was the part where I had not identified any technical flaws. > >> - 1/N is maybe a better (although not perfect) estimate of the power >> that one voter holds than 0 > > The value 1/N appears to be erroneous. It is refuted by empirical > evidence that measures the value at exactly zero. Again, the > experimental method is: > > 1. Take the last election in which you voted, and look at its > political outcome (P). Who got into office? > 2. Subtract your vote from that election. > 3. Recalculate the outcome without your vote (Q). > 4. Look at the difference between P and Q. > 5. Repeat for all the elections you ever participated in. Maybe we should make a difference between the technical analysis of the method and the real life impact of voting. Maybe terms "technical outcome" and "political outcome" could be used (although I note that you used the latter term in a different meaning few lines before this line). The first term refers to the method as a formally defined function. The latter terms may covers all aspects of the society, the impact of campaigns, impact of the numeric result of this election on the next election etc. Juho Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
Re: [EM] A design flaw in the electoral system
Good Morning, Michael re: "... I've corrected the passage to read: ... the individual voters do not intercommunicate *as such* to make a decision; therefore no valid decision can be extracted from the result. It is often impractical for voters to communicate through physical proximity. But the invalidity only arises because they do not communicate by *any* means ..." This inspires three comments: 1) Are we not both saying the same thing with regard to public participation in the electoral process? Since I'm anxious to understand your perspective, and particularly how it differs from my own, can we differentiate between your point of view and: "What made the process democratic was not the method of voting but that the people discussed the issues themselves and decided which were of sufficient import to be decided by finding the will of the majority." 2) "It is often impractical for voters to communicate through physical proximity" ... That is only true for large numbers of voters. For small groups, modern mobility eliminates the problem. 3) "But the invalidity only arises because they do not communicate by *any* means ..." Do you mean by this that the ballot is invalid because it does not allow the voters to express their true desire? To say the vote is invalid is to say the issue on which ballots are cast, as stated, has not been reduced to the essence on which the voters wish to express their preference. What would be the point of communicating if not to alter the issue in some way? re: "I still maintain that the introduction of a ballot that (unlike hands) is physically separate from the elector is a technical design flaw. It is not necessarily a significant flaw at the very moment of its introduction; but even still, an elector without a ballot is formally not a voter." Where voting is by ballot, it is true that a voter who does not cast a ballot is not a voter. However, that does not seem to be the point. It appears the point is that, at the moment a ballot is cast, the person that casts the ballot ceases to be a voter. That is only true as to future issues which may come before the voters. It is untrue as to the issue on which the ballot was cast. Ballots are the method by which voters express their opinions on matters at issue at the time they cast a ballot. The fact that a ballot is no longer in a voter's physical possession after it is cast does not alter the validity of the expression of interest stipulated by the voter. Voters are not diminished by the act of voting; they are no less the voters on an issue after they cast their ballots. Subsequent events may cause voters to rue the ballot they cast, but that does not alter the validity of their ballot. re: "It follows that communication among voters *as such* is made impossible. Moreover, if there is grounds to suspect that actual voter-like communication among the electors is now hindered, then this suspicion alone is enough to invalidate the election results." This appears to be the crux of the matter. The right of the people to communicate among themselves (i.e., deliberate) on matters of public concern is the essence of democracy. The flaw in modern electoral practice is not the separation of voters from their ballots but that voters have no means by which they can deliberate on and decide for themselves the issues on which they will vote. re: Comment to Juho Laatu, 20 Oct 2011: "Recall that we already discussed the power of one's vote. Didn't we measure it at zero, not 1/N? The vote has no effect on the political outcome of the election, therefore it has no power." If only one person votes in an election, that person's vote decides the election. As more people vote, their votes dilute the significance of the single deciding vote as expressed by 1/N. As the electorate grows, the significance of an individual vote diminishes but does not reach zero (although it gets very close). As Juho pointed out, interest groups form to attract votes to one side of an issue or another. As the interest groups grow in size, the effect of their members' votes increases. However, and this is the critical point, for individuals that reject interest groups and vote their own beliefs, the significance of their vote decreases as the size of the electorate grows. Thus, the value of the individual's vote approaches zero (but never actually reaches it) because it is swamped by the votes of special-interest groups. It is proper to say the value of an individual's vote is effectively zero, but it is not mathematically so. Fred Gohlke Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
Re: [EM] A design flaw in the electoral system
Good morning Fred, > > ... the individual voters do not intercommunicate *as such* to > > make a decision; therefore no valid decision can be extracted > > from the result. ... It is often impractical for voters to > > communicate through physical proximity. But the invalidity only > > arises because they do not communicate by *any* means ..." > > This inspires three comments: > > 1) Are we not both saying the same thing with regard to public >participation in the electoral process? Since I'm anxious to >understand your perspective, and particularly how it differs from >my own, can we differentiate between your point of view and: > > "What made the process democratic was not the method of voting >but that the people discussed the issues themselves and >decided which were of sufficient import to be decided by >finding the will of the majority." Yes, I see similarities with the argument in this section. Maybe the most important difference is that I do not make an external appeal here to democracy or any other broad social norm, but only to the technical purposes of the system: (b) Get a decision from the *electors*. (c) Let it be a *good* decision in their eyes. The design works against these purposes (REL b c), therefore the design is flawed by the engineering principle of efficacy. These are pretty much internal inconsistencies of the electoral system (left): http://zelea.com/var/db/repo/autonomy/raw-file/a44fa9a546c9/autonomy/a/fau/relations.png [REL] Causal relations among a formal failure of technical design (left) and actual failures in society (right). See descriptions in text of (a), (b), (s). There are external consequences in society too (right), not all which are diagrammed here. The manifold failures of democracy or political liberty are the most important of these. They are discussed in other sections. Note however the importance of communication among voters (center); so yes, I think we are saying much the same thing. > 3) "But the invalidity only arises because they do not > communicate by *any* means ..." > > Do you mean by this that the ballot is invalid because it does not > allow the voters to express their true desire? To say the vote is > invalid is to say the issue on which ballots are cast, as stated, > has not been reduced to the essence on which the voters wish to > express their preference. What would be the point of communicating > if not to alter the issue in some way? I meant here that the *outcome* of the election is invalid. That's the "invalid decision" in the new figure REL (above). -- Michael Allan Toronto, +1 416-699-9528 http://zelea.com/ Fred Gohlke wrote: > Good Morning, Michael > > re: "... I've corrected the passage to read: > > ... the individual voters do not intercommunicate *as > such* to make a decision; therefore no valid decision > can be extracted from the result. > > It is often impractical for voters to communicate through > physical proximity. But the invalidity only arises because > they do not communicate by *any* means ..." > > This inspires three comments: > > 1) Are we not both saying the same thing with regard to public > participation in the electoral process? Since I'm anxious to > understand your perspective, and particularly how it differs > from my own, can we differentiate between your point of view > and: > > "What made the process democratic was not the method of >voting but that the people discussed the issues themselves >and decided which were of sufficient import to be decided >by finding the will of the majority." > > 2) "It is often impractical for voters to communicate through physical > proximity" ... > > That is only true for large numbers of voters. For small groups, modern > mobility eliminates the problem. > > 3) "But the invalidity only arises because they do not > communicate by *any* means ..." > > Do you mean by this that the ballot is invalid because it does not allow > the voters to express their true desire? To say the vote is invalid is > to say the issue on which ballots are cast, as stated, has not been > reduced to the essence on which the voters wish to express their > preference. What would be the point of communicating if not to alter > the issue in some way? . . . > Fred Gohlke Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
Re: [EM] A design flaw in the electoral system
Good Afternoon, Michael
As I was studying your October 29th 'expanded outline' so I could
comment on it, I read your later responses. This led to an extensive
review of the posts regarding "A structural fault in society owing to a
design flaw in the electoral system" going back to the first of October.
The result was unsatisfactory.
For example, on October 23rd, I wrote:
> It appears the (i.e., your) point is that, at the moment a
> ballot is cast, the person that casts the ballot ceases to be
> a voter. That is only true as to future issues which may come
> before the voters. It is untrue as to the issue on which the
> ballot was cast.
On October 29th, you responded:
> Technically it is always true I think, or at least in my
> terminology. The elector is technically a "voter" while in
> possession of the ballot (in the act of voting) and not at
> other times. The distinction is crucial to the thesis, because
> it can be difficult to behave like a voter and engage in social
> decision making without the support of a concrete ballot
> (abstract voting).
>
> You are speaking of an "elector" in my terms (one who has a
> right to vote) and not an actual voter.
That is specious. The phrases "in my terminology" and "in my terms" may
have significance for you but they do not make your definition
'technically' correct. I'm attaching definitions of the terms 'vote',
'voter' and 'ballot', below, for whatever value you may find in them.
The assertion that the value of a vote is 'exactly zero' is equally
distressing. It is based on the assumption that changing the input to a
completed process will not alter the result of the process. The
arguments in support of the assumption are abstruse.
The discouraging part of this dissension (for me) is that you opened
discussion of a vital issue, one that is seldom broached on this site.
It is a matter that vitally concerns us all, and anything that detracts
from investigation of the primary point is distressing.
You correctly assert that, in a democracy, an electoral process that
provides no means for public participation in the decision making
process is flawed. The open question is how to resolve that issue. We
would do well to apply our intellect to that thorny problem.
Fred Gohlke
American English and British English Definitions provided by
Macmillan Dictionary:
Quick definitions from Macmillan (vote)
verb
> to formally express an opinion by choosing between two or
more issues, people, etc.
> to show your choice of a person or an issue in an election
> to choose something or someone to win a prize or an honor
> to suggest what you would like to do in a particular situation
noun
> the formal expression of a choice between two or more issues,
people, etc.
> an occasion when people formally choose between two or more
issues, people, etc. in an election
> the total number of votes made in an election
Quick definitions from Macmillan (voter)
noun
> someone who votes in an election
Quick definitions from Macmillan (ballot)
noun
> the process of voting secretly to choose a candidate in an
election or express an opinion about an issue
> the total number of votes recorded in an election
> a piece of paper that you write your vote on
verb
> to ask people to vote in order to decide an issue
> to vote in order to decide an issue
Definitions provided by WordNet:
Quick definitions from WordNet (vote)
> noun: the opinion of a group as determined by voting ("They
put the question to a vote")
> noun: a choice that is made by voting ("There were only 17
votes in favor of the motion")
> noun: the total number of votes cast ("They are hoping for a
large vote")
> noun: a body of voters who have the same interests ("He failed
to get the Black vote")
> noun: a legal right guaranteed by the 15th amendment to the US
constitution; guaranteed to women by the 19th amendment
("American women got the vote in 1920")
> verb: express one's preference for a candidate or for a
measure or resolution; cast a vote ("He voted for the
motion")
> verb: bring into existence or make available by vote ("They
voted aid for the underdeveloped countries in Asia")
> verb: express a choice or opinion ("I vote that we all go
home")
> verb: express one's choice or preference by vote ("Vote the
Democratic ticket")
> verb: be guided by in voting ("Vote one's conscience")
Quick definitions from WordNet (voter)
> noun: a citizen who has a legal right to vote
Quick definitions from WordNet (ballot)
> noun: a document listing the alternatives that is used in
voting
> noun: a choice that is made by voting
> verb: vote by ballot ("The voters were balloting in this
state")
Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
Re: [EM] A design flaw in the electoral system
Dear Fred, > That is specious. The phrases "in my terminology" and "in my terms" > may have significance for you but they do not make your definition > 'technically' correct. I'm attaching definitions of the terms > 'vote', 'voter' and 'ballot', below, for whatever value you may find > in them. In order to avoid confusion, I may have to substitute "actual voter", meaning one who is actually voting. OK. > The assertion that the value of a vote is 'exactly zero' is equally > distressing. It is based on the assumption that changing the input > to a completed process will not alter the result of the process. > The arguments in support of the assumption are abstruse. Some misunderstanding, because I did not assume that. Theory claims a value of zero and I measure a value of zero. Again, I believe you mean the assumptions of experimental science in general, not my own in particular. > You correctly assert that, in a democracy, an electoral process that > provides no means for public participation in the decision making > process is flawed. The open question is how to resolve that issue. > We would do well to apply our intellect to that thorny problem. You will agree it usually helps to identify the cause of the problem. Why the lack of public participation? I ask a similar question here: http://www.nycga.net/groups/vision-and-goals/forum/topic/what-is-the-cause-of-these-problems/ -- Michael Allan Toronto, +1 416-699-9528 http://zelea.com/ Fred Gohlke wrote: > Good Afternoon, Michael > > As I was studying your October 29th 'expanded outline' so I could > comment on it, I read your later responses. This led to an extensive > review of the posts regarding "A structural fault in society owing to a > design flaw in the electoral system" going back to the first of October. > The result was unsatisfactory. > > For example, on October 23rd, I wrote: > > > It appears the (i.e., your) point is that, at the moment a > > ballot is cast, the person that casts the ballot ceases to be > > a voter. That is only true as to future issues which may come > > before the voters. It is untrue as to the issue on which the > > ballot was cast. > > On October 29th, you responded: > > > Technically it is always true I think, or at least in my > > terminology. The elector is technically a "voter" while in > > possession of the ballot (in the act of voting) and not at > > other times. The distinction is crucial to the thesis, because > > it can be difficult to behave like a voter and engage in social > > decision making without the support of a concrete ballot > > (abstract voting). > > > > You are speaking of an "elector" in my terms (one who has a > > right to vote) and not an actual voter. > > That is specious. The phrases "in my terminology" and "in my terms" may > have significance for you but they do not make your definition > 'technically' correct. I'm attaching definitions of the terms 'vote', > 'voter' and 'ballot', below, for whatever value you may find in them. > > The assertion that the value of a vote is 'exactly zero' is equally > distressing. It is based on the assumption that changing the input to a > completed process will not alter the result of the process. The > arguments in support of the assumption are abstruse. > > The discouraging part of this dissension (for me) is that you opened > discussion of a vital issue, one that is seldom broached on this site. > It is a matter that vitally concerns us all, and anything that detracts > from investigation of the primary point is distressing. > > You correctly assert that, in a democracy, an electoral process that > provides no means for public participation in the decision making > process is flawed. The open question is how to resolve that issue. We > would do well to apply our intellect to that thorny problem. > > Fred Gohlke > > > American English and British English Definitions provided by > Macmillan Dictionary: > > > Quick definitions from Macmillan (vote) > > verb > > to formally express an opinion by choosing between two or >more issues, people, etc. > > to show your choice of a person or an issue in an election > > to choose something or someone to win a prize or an honor > > to suggest what you would like to do in a particular situation > > noun > > the formal expression of a choice between two or more issues, >people, etc. > > an occasion when people formally choose between two or more >issues, people, etc. in an election > > the total number of votes made in an election > > > Quick definitions from Macmillan (voter) > > noun > > someone who votes in an election > > > Quick definitions from Macmillan (ballot) > > noun > > the process of voting secretly to choose a candidate in an >election or express an opinion about an issue > > the total number of votes recorded in an election > > a piece of paper that you write your vote on > > verb > > to ask people
Re: [EM] A design flaw in the electoral system
Good Morning, Michael re: "Why the lack of public participation?" Our elections lack public participation because the election methods extant do not allow, much less encourage, public participation in the selection of candidates for public office or public deliberation on public issues. Instead, elections are party-based adversarial campaigns conducted by politicians, a process that is inherently corruptive. To find the cause of the problem, we must go back at least as far as Plato, who, when he said, "As to the people they have no understanding, and only repeat what their rulers are pleased to tell them.", failed to recognize that 'the people' included many wise and gifted individuals - like himself. We will not have public participation in our electoral process until our electoral process is built on the knowledge that there are many individuals among the people - among us - whose counsel will benefit the community. Fred Gohlke Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
Re: [EM] A design flaw in the electoral system
On Nov 3, 2011, at 9:17 AM, Fred Gohlke wrote: > re: "Why the lack of public participation?" > > Our elections lack public participation because the election methods extant > do not allow, much less encourage, public participation in the selection of > candidates for public office or public deliberation on public issues. > Instead, elections are party-based adversarial campaigns conducted by > politicians, a process that is inherently corruptive. > > To find the cause of the problem, we must go back at least as far as Plato, > who, when he said, "As to the people they have no understanding, and only > repeat what their rulers are pleased to tell them.", failed to recognize that > 'the people' included many wise and gifted individuals - like himself. Not entirely. In his Republic, the rulers were the Guardians, wise folks like himself, who live in poverty and rule benevolently. Plato for Senate! > > We will not have public participation in our electoral process until our > electoral process is built on the knowledge that there are many individuals > among the people - among us - whose counsel will benefit the community. Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
Re: [EM] A design flaw in the electoral system
Good Afternoon, Jonathan re: Not entirely. In his Republic, the rulers were the Guardians, wise folks like himself, who live in poverty and rule benevolently. Plato for Senate! That was Plato's idea of how things 'should be', not how they were. In any case, he did not see himself as one of 'the people' he referred to - a fallacy that plagues us to this day. Those who refer to 'the people' as 'sheeple' perpetuate this nonsense. Our woes will not cease until our political seers move past thinking of themselves as more gifted than the rest of humanity. We have no shortage of individuals with the intellect and integrity to represent the people. What we lack is an election method that lets the people find and elect them. Can you help accomplish that? Fred Gohlke Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
