X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00 	autolearn=unavailable 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 l87ITvux000908 	(version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL) 	for <dreeves &AElig boston.eecs.umich.edu>; Fri, 7 Sep 2007 14:29:57 -0400
Received: from ghostbusters.mr.itd.umich.edu (mx.umich.edu [141.211.176.133]) 	by newman.eecs.umich.edu (8.14.1/8.14.1) with ESMTP id l87ITP55023245; 	Fri, 7 Sep 2007 14:29:25 -0400
Received: FROM newman.eecs.umich.edu (newman.eecs.umich.edu [141.213.4.11]) 	BY ghostbusters.mr.itd.umich.edu ID 46E1987A.830A7.14364 ;  	 7 Sep 2007 14:29:14 -0400
Received: from oshkosh.eecs.umich.edu (oshkosh.eecs.umich.edu [141.212.113.86]) 	by newman.eecs.umich.edu (8.14.1/8.14.1) with ESMTP id l87IScUf022949 	(version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); 	Fri, 7 Sep 2007 14:28:38 -0400
Received: from oshkosh.eecs.umich.edu (localhost.eecs.umich.edu [127.0.0.1]) 	by oshkosh.eecs.umich.edu (8.13.8/8.13.0) with ESMTP id l87IT12a010386; 	Fri, 7 Sep 2007 14:29:01 -0400
Received: from localhost (klochner &AElig localhost) 	by oshkosh.eecs.umich.edu (8.13.8/8.13.8/Submit) with ESMTP id l87IT1Pi010383; 	Fri, 7 Sep 2007 14:29:01 -0400
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0709071405200.3721 &AElig boston.eecs.umich.edu>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0709071420490.6613 &AElig oshkosh.eecs.umich.edu>
References: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0709051408290.18608 &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>     <1189103349.28315.99.camel &AElig hactar>   <Pine.LNX.4.64.0709061447540.3721 &AElig boston.eecs.umich.edu>     <Pine.LNX.4.64.0709061539450.3775 &AElig oshkosh.eecs.umich.edu>     <Pine.LNX.4.64.0709061543430.3721 &AElig boston.eecs.umich.edu>   <5ed707a10709071059h59a7c6c9t733cb9e1343a3fb5 &AElig mail.gmail.com>  <Pine.LNX.4.64.0709071405200.3721 &AElig boston.eecs.umich.edu>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.2.2 (2007-07-23) on 	newman.eecs.umich.edu
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 newman.eecs.umich.edu
X-Virus-Status: Clean
Date: Fri, 7 Sep 2007 14:29:00 -0400 (EDT)
To: Daniel Reeves <dreeves &AElig umich.edu>
cc: improvetheworld &AElig umich.edu
From: Kevin Lochner <klochner &AElig eecs.umich.edu>
Subject: Re: candidate calculator

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"
>