> It's an interesting article, although I have a few criticisms of Natapoff's > analysis. Firstly, the notion of voter power, is it meaningful? It doesn't > seem to be to me. Secondly, assuming that it is meaningful, it seems > (although it's not entirely clear from the article) that he is comparing the > expected voting power of a randomly chosen individual in the two systems > under consideration,
In addition, why is the expected voting power of a randomly chosen individual meaningful? In fact, in every election, some (many?) states are not really contested, so the candidates put their effort into the contested states, either reflecting the idea that some voters have more power (defined as probability of affecting the outcome), or thereby giving some voters more power (defined as ability to extract something [political promises] in exchange for their votes). So because of social things, some voters have more power than others (by either definition).