Absolutely, but it's all about the probabilities. If you love Bush you
will not want to join this pact (but should join the debate anyway).
Otherwise, the risk of giving up your vote is low (and not that costly
anyway!) and the benefit of having the pact backing up your vote is high.
--- \/ FROM Kevin Lochner AT 07.09.06 15:42 (Today) \/ ---
> I hate to do this, but you're just begging for refutation when you end a post
> with QED.
>
> If everyone participates in the pact, then your first motivation is void.
>
> So if you don't expect to sway everyone to your candidate and everyone
> participates in the pact, you're essentially giving up your vote.
>
> Q(not)ED
>
>
> On Thu, 6 Sep 2007, Daniel Reeves wrote:
>
>> First, thanks Erik, words to live by in 2008: don't obsess about your
>> checklist of issues like the values-voters did with Bush.
>>
>> I want to clarify my Official Endorsement proposal. True that the debate
>> will be plenty vigorous without this pact. The value is that the
>> endorsement itself will be more meaningful the more people participate in
>> the pact.
>>
>> Consider it decision-theoretically:
>> With the endorsement pact there's some probability you'll have to vote for
>> the wrong person (in your view), but even then you'll probably have
>> convinced a couple people of your side in the process (and just one such
>> conversion breaks even).
>> There's also some probability you'll vote for the right person, and also
>> have the official endorsement more meaningfully backing you and that you
>> can point people to. That stuff spreads around the meme-o/blog-o-sphere and
>> has a (small) chance of really mattering. Compared to the chance of your
>> own vote mattering, it's a no-brainer.
>>
>> In other words, your participation in the pact strengthens the impact of
>> the endorsement and, even factoring in the risk that the endorsement goes
>> the wrong way, it's a greater expected benefit than your voting sovereignty
>> is.
>>
>> QED
>>
>> And it really can't hurt the debate either. Voting against my own
>> preference would be distinctly unpalatable and as such I would be
>> incentivized to argue my case a bit more carefully, to get the group
>> consensus in line with my opinion. And this too contributes to making the
>> endorsement that much more meaningful.
>>
>> It's all about ideas, which spread, and influence, which snowballs. Your
>> own vote is simply inconsequential. (But you still should feel ethically
>> bound to cast it, otherwise the whole system doesn't work.)
>>
>> (Another aside: the way to fix the 2-party system is with a different
>> voting mechanism, like yootling. Just kidding (mostly). Like Approval
>> Voting, Instant-Runoff Voting, Borda Count, or Range Voting. Approval
>> Voting is simplest. Just vote for as many candidates as you like. Still
>> one ballot per person but now if you want to vote "anyone but Bush", do it.
>> You can now vote for a 3rd-party candidate without wasting your vote.)
>>
>> (And speaking of endorsement pacts, the rabid supporters of the different
>> alternative voting schemes all agree that any one of these alternatives is
>> better than the brain-dead 2-party-supporting plurality voting system we
>> now use. If they would just agree to pick one and all get behind it,
>> they'd have a better chance of changing the system.)
>>
>>
>> --- \/ FROM Erik Talvitie AT 07.09.06 14:29 (Today) \/ ---
>>
>>>> 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.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>
>>
>> --
>> http://ai.eecs.umich.edu/people/dreeves - - search://"Daniel Reeves"
>>
>> "I don't like spinach and I'm glad I don't because if I liked it
>> I'd eat it, and I just hate it." -- (unknown)
>>
>
--
http://ai.eecs.umich.edu/people/dreeves - - search://"Daniel Reeves"
"I started out with nothing, and I still have most of it."
|
