Bill -- you make a very good point that the process of how a candidate
comes to a particular stance is important. Thanks for that.

Erik -- I agree that it is bad to vote based only on a few wedge
issues, which is why I think that the candidate calculator is a pretty
good idea, because it covers a variety of topics (it could cover more
than it does probably). But I also think that if more people actually
use such calculators, that we might find out that people like
Kucinich, Gravel, and Ron Paul actually do speak for a fairly large
percentage of the population. I really wish we didn't have essentially
a 2 party system. Then we could choose between the least of n evils,
instead of the lesser of 2 evils.

Rob

On 9/6/07, Erik Talvitie   wrote:
> > 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   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.
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
>
>