Oops, I somehow missed the "among the top several matches" part of #4.
Perhaps I should be evicted from the pact for (mis)reading like an idiot...
Kevin Lochner wrote:
> 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"
>>>>
>>
|
