Okay, given Kevin's suggestions, I am willing to join the pact as well.

However, I might also suggest re-writing the calculator (the wording,
not the code). I feel that Bethany has a very valid point, and I feel
much the same way. I think that a lot of it has to do with how the
stances are worded though. So I propose we re-word the questions
first.

On another note, Danny and I have been talking about trying to blogify
the improve the world archives, and arguing over how it would best be
done. Recently I have been thinking that if we really want to improve
the world, we should start trying to reach a broader audience. How
would people feel about creating a real, public improve the world
blog, which would allow comments from outsiders? Some people have
expressed concerns over anonymity in the archives. Using a real blog,
we could all use pseudonyms if so desired, thus providing more
anonymity, but also potentially reaching a wider audience.

(And on a somewhat related note, I would suggest that if we did have a
blog, we should start reading conservative blogs, and commenting on
them on our own blog. One thing the book "Linked" mentions is that
most political websites and blogs only link to like-minded sites. This
is not a good method for true discourse. Many blogs feature
"trackbacks" and "pingbacks" (not sure what the difference is).
Basically what this does is it creates an auto-generated comment when
another blog links to your blog. In this way, links become
two-directional (normally they are only one-directional). Enough about
that now)


Rob

On 9/7/07, 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"
> >>>
> >
>