Insofar as it is logically impossible to assign a probability of
exactly 0 to any future event, I concede point two below.

*pushes up glasses*

B


On 9/7/07, 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"
> >
>