X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=ham 	version=3.2.2
Sender: -2.6 (spamval) -- NONE
Return-Path: <improvetheworld-errors &AElig umich.edu>
Received: from newman.eecs.umich.edu (newman.eecs.umich.edu [141.213.4.11]) 	by boston.eecs.umich.edu (8.12.10/8.13.0) with ESMTP id l86IYdux009636 	(version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL) 	for <dreeves &AElig boston.eecs.umich.edu>; Thu, 6 Sep 2007 14:34:39 -0400
Received: from holes.mr.itd.umich.edu (mx.umich.edu [141.211.14.137]) 	by newman.eecs.umich.edu (8.14.1/8.14.1) with ESMTP id l86IY8TF013692; 	Thu, 6 Sep 2007 14:34:08 -0400
Received: FROM smtp.eecs.umich.edu (smtp.eecs.umich.edu [141.213.4.43]) 	BY holes.mr.itd.umich.edu ID 46E04828.EB8F2.15635 ;  	 6 Sep 2007 14:34:17 -0400
Received: from [141.212.108.94] (hactar.eecs.umich.edu [141.212.108.94]) 	(authenticated bits=0) 	by smtp.eecs.umich.edu (8.13.8/8.13.6) with ESMTP id l86IYG8K015049 	for <improvetheworld &AElig umich.edu>; Thu, 6 Sep 2007 14:34:16 -0400
In-Reply-To: <fb769dde0709061032q165a6ba5s70225950a5aadca6 &AElig mail.gmail.com>
References: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0709051408290.18608 &AElig oshkosh.eecs.umich.edu> 	 <582561.78990.qm &AElig web81906.mail.mud.yahoo.com> 	 <2ff07e720709051135y423738cci55b2cdcbb5a6aac0 &AElig mail.gmail.com> 	 <Pine.LNX.4.64.0709051455480.3721 &AElig boston.eecs.umich.edu> 	 <Pine.LNX.4.64.0709051524040.27494 &AElig oshkosh.eecs.umich.edu> 	 <Pine.LNX.4.64.0709052029550.3721 &AElig boston.eecs.umich.edu> 	 <1189093182.28315.51.camel &AElig hactar> 	 <Pine.LNX.4.64.0709061155460.3721 &AElig boston.eecs.umich.edu> 	 <Pine.LNX.4.56L0.0709061108280.12808 &AElig ccl.northwestern.edu> 	 <fb769dde0709061032q165a6ba5s70225950a5aadca6 &AElig mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain
Message-Id: <1189103349.28315.99.camel &AElig hactar>
Mime-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Evolution 2.10.1 
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Virus-Scanned: ClamAV version 0.91.2, clamav-milter version 0.91.2 on newman.eecs.umich.edu
X-Virus-Scanned: ClamAV version 0.91.2, clamav-milter version 0.91.2 on smtp.eecs.umich.edu
X-Virus-Status: Clean
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.2.2 (2007-07-23) on 	newman.eecs.umich.edu
Date: Thu, 06 Sep 2007 14:29:09 -0400
To: improvetheworld &AElig umich.edu
From: Erik Talvitie <etalviti &AElig eecs.umich.edu>
Subject: Re: candidate calculator

> 1. Danny -- I think we should all support who we want to, and let the
> market decide who wins. :) You do make a good point though that
> publicly supporting people makes a big difference, which is why I sent
> this to my parents, knowing that they have probably heard little about
> Mike Gravel. If you are interested in learning more about Mike Gravel
> or Ron Paul, look at reddit.com (a sort of news aggregating website).

I lean this way too. Though at the same time I'm thinking (and I bet Dan
is thinking as well) that if enough people made that commitment ITW
could potentially become a pretty useful information aggregator about
the candidates as people are forced discuss pros and cons in depth and
cite sources and so on. But I also think it might be possible to make
that discussion happen without creating a voting bloc. Who knows? Maybe
all it would take to get us going would be some potent flame-bait. 

> 2. Bull-headedness and beer drinking.
> 
> I once heard Pat Roberts talk on Fresh Air. I was very impressed by
> how articulate he was and he generally seemed to be very educated and
> intelligent, and made well-reasoned arguments. However, I strongly
> disagree with him on some economic issues, and almost all social
> issues. I would like to hear him in a debate, or talk with him in
> person, but I would never vote for him, because his actions would be
> almost the exact opposite of what I would wish for.

Yeah of course. In no way did I mean to imply that I would vote for a
candidate that I completely disagreed with, no matter how much I might
respect them as a politician or an orator. I simply meant that in many
cases I feel like the candidate who will do the most good for the
country and the most good with respect to my values is not always the
one that shares those values point for point. Like, I found myself
wishing in the last two elections that conservative "values-voters"
could just look a little bit past their particular checklist of wedge
issues so they might notice that Bush was just glaringly bad for the
country: divisive, opaque, uninformed, and short-sighted. And in the
end, Bush probably did more damage to conservatism than good because he
decided to take giant steps toward his own ideal without any attempt to
convince anyone it was the right thing to do. Now the entire Republican
party is feeling the backlash. So, I try and give up on *my* checklist
of issues, which I know to be some distance from the national norm, for
the sake of a candidate who seems like zie might be the most able to
inspire the country to move in basically what I believe to be the right
direction, even if zie and I don't share exactly the same ultimate ideal
(and no one is going to get to zir ideal in a decade anyway). I'd love
to live in a US where someone like Kucinich would make a good president,
I just don't think I live there right now. You know?

Erik

> On 9/6/07, Bill Rand <wrand &AElig northwestern.edu> wrote:
> >         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.
> > >
> > >
> >