I'm willing to participate in the pact (i.e., endorse bethany's
ensorsement of the endorsement pact) contingent on a few conditions:

1) dan concedes you can't "prove" we should do it
2) bethany concedes that the rapture may be imminent
3) we debate the issues independently from the candidates
4) we select a candidate by putting our resolved issue stances into the
    candidate calculator, and select among the top several matches based on
    which candidate we collectively "like".

- k


On Fri, 7 Sep 2007, Daniel Reeves wrote:

>> I'll endorse the endorsement pact. We can be like our own little
>> electoral college. Sorta.
>
> Awesome, thanks Bethany!
>
> Also, on second thought, even if you're a Bush supporter and you know you're 
> throwing your vote away by joining the pact you'll still in expectation 
> convert more than one non pact member in your futile attempt to sway the 
> endorsement.	Sure, you could make the futile attempt without being in the 
> pact, but surely the anguished tone of "please don't make me vote for 
> Hillary" will win you one additional convert, not to mention your greater 
> motivation to engage in the debate at all.
>
> And if you're *not* a Bush supporter I really don't see what's holding you 
> back!
>
> The original proposal is below.
>
>
>>>>> 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.)
>
> ORIGINAL PROPOSAL:
>
> I have a radical idea.  Let's, through some democratic process, agree on
> an official ImproveTheWorld endorsement of one candidate.  (That wasn't
> the radical part.)  If we do that, I hereby promise to vote for that
> candidate, regardless of whether I want to.  Why?  Because the truth is
> that who you publicly support matters much more than who you actually vote
> for. Committing myself to vote for whoever the ImproveTheWorld Endorsement
> is means I have to argue persuasively for my favorite candidate.
>
> So, I'm committed.  Anyone else?
>
> -- 
> http://ai.eecs.umich.edu/people/dreeves  - -	search://"Daniel Reeves"
>