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: 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 l87ItUux002017 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL) for ; Fri, 7 Sep 2007 14:55:30 -0400 Received: from guys.mr.itd.umich.edu (mx.umich.edu [141.211.14.135]) by newman.eecs.umich.edu (8.14.1/8.14.1) with ESMTP id l87IstL7029225; Fri, 7 Sep 2007 14:54:55 -0400 Received: FROM newman.eecs.umich.edu (newman.eecs.umich.edu [141.213.4.11]) BY guys.mr.itd.umich.edu ID 46E19E3F.99681.15145 ; 7 Sep 2007 14:53:54 -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 l87IrCgZ028866 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Fri, 7 Sep 2007 14:53:12 -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 l87IrYe5011116; Fri, 7 Sep 2007 14:53:34 -0400 Received: from localhost (klochner Æ localhost) by oshkosh.eecs.umich.edu (8.13.8/8.13.8/Submit) with ESMTP id l87IrYfg011113; Fri, 7 Sep 2007 14:53:34 -0400 In-Reply-To: <46E19C1D.2030900 Æ eecs.umich.edu> Message-ID: References: <1189093182.28315.51.camel Æ hactar> <1189103349.28315.99.camel Æ hactar> <5ed707a10709071059h59a7c6c9t733cb9e1343a3fb5 Æ mail.gmail.com> <46E19C1D.2030900 Æ 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 14:53:34 -0400 (EDT) To: Matt Rudary cc: Daniel Reeves , improvetheworld Æ umich.edu From: Kevin Lochner Subject: Re: candidate calculator I was serious, but thought i addressed your concerns by suggesting we take the top several candidates based on positions & subsequently decide amongst them. That seems to me like the most disciplined way to conduct the pact negotiations. If your favorite candidate doesn't even make the top 3 or 4 choices based on how his/her positions agree with your own, I think you should be evicted from the pact for voting like an idiot (that was a joke). -k On Fri, 7 Sep 2007, Matt Rudary wrote: > 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" >>> >