Votes can not be counted more than once, and every vote counts (according to the voter.) As all voters have an equal opportunity to withhold or spend votes - how can this be unfair?

In current systems, a minority voter may never be offered a candidate worth a vote - all such votes don't count (according to the voter.) This is clearly unfair, and has only an appearance of proportional representation.

With the right maneuvering among a well-organized block of voters, I could imagine a situation where the system becomes a perpetual minority rule.

And this does not happen now?

This is likely the reason for low turn outs in many elections - the voters simply do not care.

... they frequently vibrate the air, radiate heat, and exude various chemicals ...

These signals appear to be unavoidable. When we lie, however, many of our behavioural signals appear to be avoidable: for example.

There is no dispute that we betray our own lies; but why do we betray our lies?

... Expected payoff is low in this tangent ...

Expected payoff for whom?

I am new to this forum; as far as I remember I came here via the QM sequence. I was immediately impressed by the material, and became interested in other sequences (I have a long term interest in rationality, and especially general semantics.)

In order to acquaint myself with the general gist of the forums, I made a couple of innocuous posts on this thread; to which I received this response:

... I mean it is bullshit.

I have a natural aversion to narcissistic types, and my hackles were immediately alerted. After one or two more pokes, I was on full alert.

Do you consider yourself to be a moderator of this forum? If so, why are you both moderating and rating comments? If not, why do you think your opinions are privileged?

... any rational defences are welcomed and may be appended below.

What part of that in unclear?

Not everything that is faced can be changed. But nothing can be changed until it is faced.

– James Baldwin

The obscure language was likely due to the political context of the original; try substituting 'identified' for 'faced'.

In the case that the second proposition (with respect QM) is irrelevant to the thread, any apparent dislike of the comment must associate to the first proposition.

... symbols (or strings of symbols) have different sense in different contexts ...

This in response to your comment:

This is an excellent quote ... I downvoted it here ...

Please elaborate.

I am new to LW, and I don't get it; this is supposed to be a forum promoting rationality, and anyone who dissed this comment appears to be behaving re-actively.

Any rational justifications as to why anyone would respond to the above comment are welcomed, and may be appended below.

A good resource on distinctions (if you are not yet aware of it), is George Spencer-Brown's Laws of Form. These ideas are being further explored (Bricken, Awbrey), and various resources on boundary logic and differential logic, are now available on the web.