X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,SPF_NEUTRAL 	autolearn=no version=3.2.2
Sender: -1.9 (spamval) -- NONE
Return-Path: <robfelty &AElig gmail.com>
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 l87JJBux002970 	(version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL) 	for <dreeves &AElig boston.eecs.umich.edu>; Fri, 7 Sep 2007 15:19:11 -0400
Received: from icestorm.mr.itd.umich.edu (mx.umich.edu [141.211.176.135]) 	by newman.eecs.umich.edu (8.14.1/8.14.1) with ESMTP id l87JIgN1002685 	for <dreeves &AElig eecs.umich.edu>; Fri, 7 Sep 2007 15:18:42 -0400
Received: FROM wa-out-1112.google.com (wa-out-1112.google.com [209.85.146.183]) 	BY icestorm.mr.itd.umich.edu ID 46E1A41C.24B72.29000 ;  	 7 Sep 2007 15:18:52 -0400
Received: by wa-out-1112.google.com with SMTP id l24so707653waf         for <dreeves &AElig umich.edu>; Fri, 07 Sep 2007 12:18:51 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;         d=gmail.com; s=beta;         h=domainkey-signature:received:received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references;         bh=RpOrsMSiOxZE+EAeUUeujogTBUZl/jR3Pglv9gZLoEY=;         b=C+L/5OM0IX0GhggHcxIqFeDg728+8GMtkJ3yXSmHL4Gkg30KV2S/doovA4cf+BWbUFcdtsZtjOTQz4nF4UVU1hUynkBby8rF3mReVODqWRm1E7FtWHdQNeAxZvmAt+oeXpkZeo+yFlL3g60oCIv7iC3xopr2Tx4iQUIY+hdGdqI=
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws;         d=gmail.com; s=beta;         h=received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references;         b=NC9y+onn9YYqTbxY+JqFuWsAf+BKFkaj07Hzj7YPhnvMMpk6g/rhsMiWsW2BIkRhqYO4nYGPAZIPotKq8nPHLHDaNFf6/HhqICuOA6yIAes37WJwfacpO6hW2RKntyoNM3lPg4jlK/8mCBMrf0YasN2d/61k4lkGjXxTfLp2F3M=
Received: by 10.114.52.1 with SMTP id z1mr1302877waz.1189192730875;         Fri, 07 Sep 2007 12:18:50 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.114.255.15 with HTTP; Fri, 7 Sep 2007 12:18:50 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <fb769dde0709071218q1ddd6cd8qdfc16ac3c445789 &AElig mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0709071447450.6613 &AElig oshkosh.eecs.umich.edu>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
References: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0709051408290.18608 &AElig oshkosh.eecs.umich.edu> 	 <1189103349.28315.99.camel &AElig hactar> 	 <Pine.LNX.4.64.0709061447540.3721 &AElig boston.eecs.umich.edu> 	 <Pine.LNX.4.64.0709061539450.3775 &AElig oshkosh.eecs.umich.edu> 	 <Pine.LNX.4.64.0709061543430.3721 &AElig boston.eecs.umich.edu> 	 <5ed707a10709071059h59a7c6c9t733cb9e1343a3fb5 &AElig mail.gmail.com> 	 <Pine.LNX.4.64.0709071405200.3721 &AElig boston.eecs.umich.edu> 	 <Pine.LNX.4.64.0709071420490.6613 &AElig oshkosh.eecs.umich.edu> 	 <46E19C1D.2030900 &AElig eecs.umich.edu> 	 <Pine.LNX.4.64.0709071447450.6613 &AElig oshkosh.eecs.umich.edu>
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-Status: Clean
Date: Fri, 7 Sep 2007 15:18:50 -0400
To: "Kevin Lochner" <klochner &AElig eecs.umich.edu>
Cc: "Matt Rudary" <mrudary &AElig eecs.umich.edu>,         "Daniel Reeves" <dreeves &AElig umich.edu>, improvetheworld &AElig umich.edu
From: "Rob Felty" <robfelty &AElig gmail.com>
Subject: Re: candidate calculator

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 <klochner &AElig eecs.umich.edu> 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"
> >>>
> >
>