X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00 	autolearn=unavailable version=3.2.2
Sender: -2.6 (spamval) -- NONE
Return-Path: <improvetheworld-errors &AElig umich.edu>
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 l87MOqux010651 	(version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL) 	for <dreeves &AElig boston.eecs.umich.edu>; Fri, 7 Sep 2007 18:24:53 -0400
Received: from guys.mr.itd.umich.edu (mx.umich.edu [141.211.14.135]) 	by newman.eecs.umich.edu (8.14.1/8.14.1) with ESMTP id l87MOMXG012163; 	Fri, 7 Sep 2007 18:24:22 -0400
Received: FROM newman.eecs.umich.edu (newman.eecs.umich.edu [141.213.4.11]) 	BY guys.mr.itd.umich.edu ID 46E1CFA5.7DA92.1530 ;  	 7 Sep 2007 18:24:37 -0400
Received: from boston.eecs.umich.edu (boston.eecs.umich.edu [141.213.4.61]) 	by newman.eecs.umich.edu (8.14.1/8.14.1) with ESMTP id l87MO7KZ012121 	(version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL) 	for <improvetheworld &AElig umich.edu>; Fri, 7 Sep 2007 18:24:07 -0400
Received: from boston.eecs.umich.edu (localhost.eecs.umich.edu [127.0.0.1]) 	by boston.eecs.umich.edu (8.12.10/8.13.0) with ESMTP id l87MOTux010643 	(version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) 	for <improvetheworld &AElig umich.edu>; Fri, 7 Sep 2007 18:24:29 -0400
Received: from localhost (dreeves &AElig localhost) 	by boston.eecs.umich.edu (8.12.10/8.12.9/Submit) with ESMTP id l87MOTLa010640 	for <improvetheworld &AElig umich.edu>; Fri, 7 Sep 2007 18:24:29 -0400
X-Authentication-Warning: boston.eecs.umich.edu: dreeves owned process doing -bs
X-X-Sender: dreeves &AElig boston.eecs.umich.edu
In-Reply-To: <5ed707a10709071225q3b2be676t29a903113e9506db &AElig mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0709071526580.3721 &AElig boston.eecs.umich.edu>
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>  <5ed707a10709071225q3b2be676t29a903113e9506db &AElig mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed
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-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 18:24:29 -0400 (EDT)
To: improvetheworld &AElig umich.edu
From: Daniel Reeves <dreeves &AElig umich.edu>
Subject: Re: candidate calculator

The following is now on the ITW whiteboard (google improvetheworld):

For the 2008 presidential election ImproveTheWorld will officially endorse 
one candidate, to be determined by debating the issues and using a 
modified version of the Candidate Calculator (yootles.com/candicalc) to 
pare down the list.  The undersigned have solemnly promised to vote for 
the endorsed candidate, whomever it turns out to be (thus creating strong 
incentives to sway the debate!)...

   1. Daniel Reeves
   2. Bethany Soule
   3. Kevin Lochner
   4. Matt Rudary
   5. Rob Felty

And the Official Endorsement (who everyone above will be voting for!) 
is...    _______TBD________


Who else wants to join?  (You can reply to just me if you want.)
We really need some socialists (Michelle? Dave? Trixie? James?).
Maybe some real republicans too.

PS: Fine, I concede point 1!

--- \/   FROM bethany soule AT 07.09.07 15:25 (Today)   \/ ---

> 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"
>>>
>>
>

-- 
http://ai.eecs.umich.edu/people/dreeves  - -  search://"Daniel Reeves"

"Oh, forget it:  I can't write about this anymore until I find a
much more sarcastic typeface."  -- Bill Bickel