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: 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 l87Ikcux001781 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL) for ; Fri, 7 Sep 2007 14:46:38 -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 l87Ik3wW027544; Fri, 7 Sep 2007 14:46:03 -0400 Received: FROM smtp.eecs.umich.edu (smtp.eecs.umich.edu [141.213.4.43]) BY ghostbusters.mr.itd.umich.edu ID 46E19C7B.1E9DB.591 ; 7 Sep 2007 14:46:19 -0400 Received: from [141.212.108.83] (neuromancer.eecs.umich.edu [141.212.108.83]) (authenticated bits=0) by smtp.eecs.umich.edu (8.13.8/8.13.6) with ESMTP id l87IkIaN030323; Fri, 7 Sep 2007 14:46:18 -0400 Message-ID: <46E19C1D.2030900 Æ eecs.umich.edu> User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5.0.13 (X11/20070824) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <1189093182.28315.51.camel Æ hactar> <1189103349.28315.99.camel Æ hactar> <5ed707a10709071059h59a7c6c9t733cb9e1343a3fb5 Æ mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed 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: Fri, 07 Sep 2007 14:44:45 -0400 To: Kevin Lochner CC: Daniel Reeves , improvetheworld Æ umich.edu From: Matt Rudary Subject: Re: candidate calculator I can't tell -- were you serious about #3 and #4 or do you just not want to do this? I'm willing to join in the voting bloc, but like Erik I specifically *do not* want to choose a candidate based only on their reported positions on the issues. Matt Kevin Lochner wrote: > 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" >>