I agree with Erik on this one.	When people kept saying that 
they voted for Bush because he was the kind of guy he wanted to have a 
beer with, I thought that was the worst possible criteria you could come 
up with for electing a president.  I want someone who has intelligent 
views on issues and can even convince me to change my mind on issues, and 
works really hard to find out everything they need to know about an issue.  
I want someone who I would pay to go sit in a lecture and hear them 
discuss the issues of the day.	They provide unique insight, that really 
makes me think.  In the end I guess I don't like to vote based on 
someone's view on issues but rather on their articulation and evidence to 
support their view on the issues.  Then I can go out and see if what they 
say makes sense based on my own research.  Of course in cases where I have 
clear thoughts on these issues, if they disagree with me it will of course 
take them a lot more convincing, but I still won't vote for someone just 
because they agree with me on everything.  In fact if I saw a candidate 
just articulate all the things I support, but do it in a poor manner, I 
would be less likely to vote for them.	So I don't think bull-headed 
idealogue fixes this problem, but I do like your pre-commitment idea Danny 
since it could overcome this objection if it was something we negotiated 
on the list as a group as opposed to relying on the calculator.  Take 
care,
Bill

On Thu, 6 Sep 2007, Daniel Reeves wrote:

> Would adding the criterion "not a bull-headed ideologue" fix this?
> 
> And what do you think of my ITW Endorsement Pre-commitment idea?
> 
> --- \/   FROM Erik Talvitie AT 07.09.06 11:39 (Today)   \/ ---
> 
> >> According to yootles.com/candicalc we are overwhelmingly in favor of
> >> Kucinich, as are (to a lesser extent) the other 150,000 people who
> >> answered those same questions.  The selectsmart page (linked to at the top
> >> of yootles.com/candicalc) says I like Ron Paul the best.
> >
> > Here's the thing about these calculators: they seem to assume that your
> > ideal candidate is...you. To me, that's kind of an odd place to start
> > from. I mean, obviously it is true that I take the political positions I
> > take because I believe if the government were to take the same
> > positions, we'd be a better nation for it. That said, I fully recognize
> > that if I could perform a government transplant and replace our current
> > one with one that agreed with me on every issue, we'd have a big problem
> > on our hands. Because *most* people don't agree with me on at least some
> > issue that is really important to them, and everything would just grid
> > to a halt. So really I'd much rather have a government that most people
> > can get along with, but one that is walking in my direction and bringing
> > the nation with it.
> >
> > So when both calculators tell me Kucinich is the best candidate for me
> > (yootles: 58, selectsmart: 98), I can see where they're coming from. I
> > *like* Kucinich. I like what we has to say and I love to hear him speak.
> > I think he's the most legitimately liberal candidate in the field. And
> > that's why I would never vote for him. He can't even sell his platform
> > to moderate dems, let alone die-hard conservatives. If he managed to
> > magically get to the oval office, he'd be a complete waste of time. He'd
> > never get anything done because no congressperson (democrat or
> > republican) who wanted to get re-elected could have anything to do with
> > him. The same goes for Gravel and Paul too, as far as I'm concerned.
> > They all have great ideas for the Perfect America but they give no
> > indication that they will be able to put that agenda aside and work with
> > the contentious, confused, inertial country we've got right now. We've
> > just suffered through 8 years of an ideological, bull-headed president
> > who knows what's best for everyone, despite abysmal approval ratings. I
> > don't want a repeat, even if I share the ideology this time around.
> >
> > So when I'm looking at candidates, I'm not looking for the one that is
> > the best reflection of me, I'm looking for the one that will best
> > champion my overall values to everyone else. I'd like the candidate who
> > is most likely to be able to convince the nation as a whole that a
> > couple of steps to the left ("and then a jump to the ri-i-i-i-ight!") in
> > our policies will do us all some good. Even though I don't agree with
> > them issue for issue (and even on some issues that are really important
> > to me) I actually think the Democratic front-runners are probably the
> > best we've got using that criterion (and maybe Biden too, if he could
> > just gain some traction).
> >
> > Just my 2 pyoonies.
> >
> > Erik
> >
> 
> -- 
> http://ai.eecs.umich.edu/people/dreeves  - -	search://"Daniel Reeves"
> 
> Build a man a fire, and he's warm for the
> rest of the evening. Set a man on fire and
> he's warm for the rest of his life.
> 
>