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 l87JE4ux002886 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL) for ; Fri, 7 Sep 2007 15:14:05 -0400 Received: from galaxyquest.mr.itd.umich.edu (mx.umich.edu [141.211.176.134]) by newman.eecs.umich.edu (8.14.1/8.14.1) with ESMTP id l87JDXTx001329; Fri, 7 Sep 2007 15:13:33 -0400 Received: FROM smtp.eecs.umich.edu (smtp.eecs.umich.edu [141.213.4.43]) BY galaxyquest.mr.itd.umich.edu ID 46E1A2E9.23C58.23679 ; 7 Sep 2007 15:13:45 -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 l87JDhdG000315; Fri, 7 Sep 2007 15:13:44 -0400 Message-ID: <46E1A28B.1030500 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> <46E19C1D.2030900 Æ eecs.umich.edu> 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 15:12:11 -0400 To: Kevin Lochner CC: Daniel Reeves , improvetheworld Æ umich.edu From: Matt Rudary Subject: Re: candidate calculator 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" >>>> >>