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: <bsoule &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 l87JQHux003229 	(version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL) 	for <dreeves &AElig boston.eecs.umich.edu>; Fri, 7 Sep 2007 15:26:17 -0400
Received: from jeffrey.mr.itd.umich.edu (mx.umich.edu [141.211.14.132]) 	by newman.eecs.umich.edu (8.14.1/8.14.1) with ESMTP id l87JPkjt004611 	for <dreeves &AElig eecs.umich.edu>; Fri, 7 Sep 2007 15:25:46 -0400
Received: FROM wa-out-1112.google.com (wa-out-1112.google.com [209.85.146.181]) 	BY jeffrey.mr.itd.umich.edu ID 46E1A5C6.BB03D.12655 ;  	 7 Sep 2007 15:25:58 -0400
Received: by wa-out-1112.google.com with SMTP id l24so709652waf         for <dreeves &AElig umich.edu>; Fri, 07 Sep 2007 12:25:58 -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=Izf0s2ic3E75mnh95i6nGd/0VLQ97nsfrWKARqFMNQ4=;         b=Ayj4RKk0WbOKQROjAprr7MZd5/is4h1q2AcM8LjWfD+7WkcSGrT0SB2FAiwQBlsEpcUvcf9iq/uTFBAhswACN1BQqrEPwvO8vfbDnCkoks/BwoGSQaPzYudYJfBCj1Cev1FxajrLtTwQKaWl5TaGyBkuEde/CfulutNKmLJ26vg=
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=kvxFEfcSGFXj0nLPFciQzAEjfNNXClc4OgMuicNDzG/OGZLStnLb6hvPSz9dt0dcoW1/q6Gec5DH+HJsEPU0EdVZhjKCK0ZdR7Qw3P2i2Ef4VH6K7TCWldVnD5pTvgcW690RbPYVn4mJNUKhEGdx2h81DWTOd4OcYcWKGzO5XaU=
Received: by 10.114.95.1 with SMTP id s1mr1490019wab.1189193158201;         Fri, 07 Sep 2007 12:25:58 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.114.175.7 with HTTP; Fri, 7 Sep 2007 12:25:58 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <5ed707a10709071225q3b2be676t29a903113e9506db &AElig mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0709071420490.6613 &AElig oshkosh.eecs.umich.edu>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
References: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0709051408290.18608 &AElig oshkosh.eecs.umich.edu> 	 <Pine.LNX.4.56L0.0709061108280.12808 &AElig ccl.northwestern.edu> 	 <fb769dde0709061032q165a6ba5s70225950a5aadca6 &AElig mail.gmail.com> 	 <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>
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 15:25:58 -0400
To: "Kevin Lochner" <klochner &AElig eecs.umich.edu>
Cc: "Daniel Reeves" <dreeves &AElig umich.edu>, improvetheworld &AElig umich.edu
From: "bethany soule" <bsoule &AElig gmail.com>
Subject: Re: candidate calculator

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