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.