Hi Andre,

Yes, carefully you explain why each citizen should vote even if one can only use the existing extremely flawed system. Yes, even when your vote does not help anyone to be elected, your vote might indirectly make some democratic contributions. However, this hope does not remove the fact that more than 50% of all citizens’ votes are frequently wasted in North America and the UK in the sense defined by the second paragraph of the following published article:

We see a citizen’s vote as being wasted quantitatively to the degree that it fails proportionately to add to the voting power of the member in the legislative body whom she has helped to elect. A citizen’s vote is wasted qualitatively when it fails to increase the voting power of the member she sees as most fit for the office, e.g. the one she trusts most to speak, work, and vote as she would herself if she had the time, energy, skills and opportunity to do so. Her vote is partly wasted qualitatively when her vote is instead given to a member who is less valued in this way by her.(see: http://www.jpolrisk.com/legislatures-elected-by-evaluative-proportional-representation-epr-a-new-algorithm/).

If you also belief that the best representative democracy would not waste any citizen’s vote, perhaps you would like to consider the above article’s explanation of how such waste can be minimized? For example, the method called Majority Judgment allows voters to grade the qualifications of each candidate as being either Excellent, Very Good, Good, Acceptable, Poor, or Reject. This guarantees the elected president, governor, or mayor will have been judged by at least 50% plus one of all voters to be the one candidate who is most qualified for the office. Similarly, the method called Evaluative Proportional Representation (EPR) allows each citizen to guarantee that the member of the legislature she has helped to elect is the one she sees as most qualified.

I look forward to your feedback.

Best regards,

stevebosworth@hotmail.com