I have no idea what any of you are talking about anymore. But it's clear you're not talking about what I am. You keep changing the wording of what I'm saying...as always.
Actually, it seems to me that everyone completely has been on topic.
I never said a vote doesn't count.
You did say a vote does not count. That is the predicate of your Arrow theory that you applied incorrectly.
I never said that a single vote could NEVER determine an election.
You did say that in some cases a single vote can determine the election. That is not what you have been saying though. Which is that no vote counts because one vote cannot determine an election when there are a great deal of votes. However, either you or Arrow would then be making the case that a vote is a zero and only one of X number can ever be a one. When the reality of the math is that X is the number of null votes and one deciding vote with apparently no accounting for any further plus votes. It is a flawed theory trying to use one individual vote to measure an aggregate problem.
I never said that I thought voting was immoral.
Hmmm, has she ever said the exact quote that voting is immoral? Maybe not, but might very well have in other topics of this same ranting. Whether the exact words were said or not, she uses the false logic constantly that the RESULT of a vote is equal to the vote. She has instead stated that voting is not immoral, while mistaking voting with the result of the election.
These are all red herrings used to divert attention away from the main point. So i'll try to bring everyone back one more time. I'm going to make it as specific as possible. Let's focus on the first paper i cited which showed the odds of a single vote deciding the outcome of a presidential election.
I am glad you state that you know red herrings so will refrain from using them now. Like that will happen.
Does anyone disagree with the substance of this paper? Not my "interpretation," or whatever. Just the substance of the paper.
Yeppers…. A single vote in a dictator scenario cannot quantify an aggregate vote. It also presupposes that only one person can vote and be decider. If multiple votes were somehow considered in Arrow, then the null votes would have to somehow magically become non votes and any overage of the one deciding vote would have to be void as well, leaving just a single voter. A lot of wild and crazy assumptions just for a sloppy theory.
That is not taking into account her wild assertions that are not a part of arrow.