I would have to say that what you contend only happens in elections which are not perfect. In a perfect world, The voting method would somehow be statistically impervious to any type of scrutiny, whether it be from the media, the candidates or their followers. Although I cannot answer the original question, I do believe that it depends on the circumstances of the election as to whether a single vote could win it.
Danny Purvis wrote: > > Key to the cited discussion is the following passage: > > >These insights came quickly, but it was many years before Natapoff > >devised his formal mathematical proof. His starting point was the > >concept of voting power. In a fair election, he saw, each voterÃÂÃÂs > >power boils down to this: What is the probability that one personÃÂÃÂs > >vote will be able to turn a national election? The higher the > >probability, the more power each voter commands. > > I would argue that, by the definition above, each voter has no power. > A difference of one vote in millions is not measureable, and thus the > probability is zero that one vote can swing a national election. As > the present national election demonstrates, a national election which > ends in a statistical tie is settled not by votes but by a chaotic > legal and propaganda war, the type of struggle in which the > unprincipled rascal has a definite advantage. A single vote is > statistically insignificant and thus cannot break a statistical tie.