After giving it some thought, my problem with dan's group-decision idea is
that ultimately we all have personal stances on issues, and who to vote
for is based partly on who will be an advocate for the issues that are
important to us, and partly on who we have confidence in as a
leader.  So coming to a group agreement on who to vote for would boil
largely down to deciding who's issues (within this group) are more
important, and deciding who we have confidence in (which is hard to
argue).

A better approach may be to outline which candidate stands for what in a 
big chart, and then we can debate the issues themselves.  I don't think 
the improvetheworld members are lacking in incentives to argue & debate.

- kevin


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.
>