What's QED?
Trixie
>From: Kevin Lochner
>To: Daniel Reeves
>CC: Erik Talvitie , improvetheworld Æ umich.edu
>Subject: Re: candidate calculator
>Date: Thu, 6 Sep 2007 15:42:03 -0400 (EDT)
>
>I hate to do this, but you're just begging for refutation when you end a
>post with QED.
>
>If everyone participates in the pact, then your first motivation is void.
>
>So if you don't expect to sway everyone to your candidate and everyone
>participates in the pact, you're essentially giving up your vote.
>
>Q(not)ED
>
>
>On Thu, 6 Sep 2007, Daniel Reeves wrote:
>
>>First, thanks Erik, words to live by in 2008: don't obsess about your
>>checklist of issues like the values-voters did with Bush.
>>
>>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.)
>>
>>
>>--- \/ FROM Erik Talvitie AT 07.09.06 14:29 (Today) \/ ---
>>
>>>>1. Danny -- I think we should all support who we want to, and let the
>>>>market decide who wins. :) You do make a good point though that
>>>>publicly supporting people makes a big difference, which is why I sent
>>>>this to my parents, knowing that they have probably heard little about
>>>>Mike Gravel. If you are interested in learning more about Mike Gravel
>>>>or Ron Paul, look at reddit.com (a sort of news aggregating website).
>>>
>>>I lean this way too. Though at the same time I'm thinking (and I bet Dan
>>>is thinking as well) that if enough people made that commitment ITW
>>>could potentially become a pretty useful information aggregator about
>>>the candidates as people are forced discuss pros and cons in depth and
>>>cite sources and so on. But I also think it might be possible to make
>>>that discussion happen without creating a voting bloc. Who knows? Maybe
>>>all it would take to get us going would be some potent flame-bait.
>>>
>>>>2. Bull-headedness and beer drinking.
>>>>
>>>>I once heard Pat Roberts talk on Fresh Air. I was very impressed by
>>>>how articulate he was and he generally seemed to be very educated and
>>>>intelligent, and made well-reasoned arguments. However, I strongly
>>>>disagree with him on some economic issues, and almost all social
>>>>issues. I would like to hear him in a debate, or talk with him in
>>>>person, but I would never vote for him, because his actions would be
>>>>almost the exact opposite of what I would wish for.
>>>
>>>Yeah of course. In no way did I mean to imply that I would vote for a
>>>candidate that I completely disagreed with, no matter how much I might
>>>respect them as a politician or an orator. I simply meant that in many
>>>cases I feel like the candidate who will do the most good for the
>>>country and the most good with respect to my values is not always the
>>>one that shares those values point for point. Like, I found myself
>>>wishing in the last two elections that conservative "values-voters"
>>>could just look a little bit past their particular checklist of wedge
>>>issues so they might notice that Bush was just glaringly bad for the
>>>country: divisive, opaque, uninformed, and short-sighted. And in the
>>>end, Bush probably did more damage to conservatism than good because he
>>>decided to take giant steps toward his own ideal without any attempt to
>>>convince anyone it was the right thing to do. Now the entire Republican
>>>party is feeling the backlash. So, I try and give up on *my* checklist
>>>of issues, which I know to be some distance from the national norm, for
>>>the sake of a candidate who seems like zie might be the most able to
>>>inspire the country to move in basically what I believe to be the right
>>>direction, even if zie and I don't share exactly the same ultimate ideal
>>>(and no one is going to get to zir ideal in a decade anyway). I'd love
>>>to live in a US where someone like Kucinich would make a good president,
>>>I just don't think I live there right now. You know?
>>>
>>>Erik
>>>
>>>>On 9/6/07, Bill Rand wrote:
>>>>> I agree with Erik on this one. When people kept saying that
>>>>>they voted for Bush because he was the kind of guy he wanted to have a
>>>>>beer with, I thought that was the worst possible criteria you could
>>>>>come
>>>>>up with for electing a president. I want someone who has intelligent
>>>>>views on issues and can even convince me to change my mind on issues,
>>>>>and
>>>>>works really hard to find out everything they need to know about an
>>>>>issue.
>>>>>I want someone who I would pay to go sit in a lecture and hear them
>>>>>discuss the issues of the day. They provide unique insight, that
>>>>>really
>>>>>makes me think. In the end I guess I don't like to vote based on
>>>>>someone's view on issues but rather on their articulation and evidence
>>>>>to
>>>>>support their view on the issues. Then I can go out and see if what
>>>>>they
>>>>>say makes sense based on my own research. Of course in cases where I
>>>>>have
>>>>>clear thoughts on these issues, if they disagree with me it will of
>>>>>course
>>>>>take them a lot more convincing, but I still won't vote for someone
>>>>>just
>>>>>because they agree with me on everything. In fact if I saw a candidate
>>>>>just articulate all the things I support, but do it in a poor manner, I
>>>>>would be less likely to vote for them. So I don't think bull-headed
>>>>>idealogue fixes this problem, but I do like your pre-commitment idea
>>>>>Danny
>>>>>since it could overcome this objection if it was something we
>>>>>negotiated
>>>>>on the list as a group as opposed to relying on the calculator. Take
>>>>>care,
>>>>>Bill
>>>>>
>>>>>On Thu, 6 Sep 2007, Daniel Reeves wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>Would adding the criterion "not a bull-headed ideologue" fix this?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>And what do you think of my ITW Endorsement Pre-commitment idea?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>--- \/ FROM Erik Talvitie AT 07.09.06 11:39 (Today) \/ ---
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>According to yootles.com/candicalc we are overwhelmingly in favor of
>>>>>>>>Kucinich, as are (to a lesser extent) the other 150,000 people who
>>>>>>>>answered those same questions. The selectsmart page (linked to at
>>>>>>>>the top
>>>>>>>>of yootles.com/candicalc) says I like Ron Paul the best.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Here's the thing about these calculators: they seem to assume that
>>>>>>>your
>>>>>>>ideal candidate is...you. To me, that's kind of an odd place to start
>>>>>>>from. I mean, obviously it is true that I take the political
>>>>>>>positions I
>>>>>>>take because I believe if the government were to take the same
>>>>>>>positions, we'd be a better nation for it. That said, I fully
>>>>>>>recognize
>>>>>>>that if I could perform a government transplant and replace our
>>>>>>>current
>>>>>>>one with one that agreed with me on every issue, we'd have a big
>>>>>>>problem
>>>>>>>on our hands. Because *most* people don't agree with me on at least
>>>>>>>some
>>>>>>>issue that is really important to them, and everything would just
>>>>>>>grid
>>>>>>>to a halt. So really I'd much rather have a government that most
>>>>>>>people
>>>>>>>can get along with, but one that is walking in my direction and
>>>>>>>bringing
>>>>>>>the nation with it.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>So when both calculators tell me Kucinich is the best candidate for
>>>>>>>me
>>>>>>>(yootles: 58, selectsmart: 98), I can see where they're coming from.
>>>>>>>I
>>>>>>>*like* Kucinich. I like what we has to say and I love to hear him
>>>>>>>speak.
>>>>>>>I think he's the most legitimately liberal candidate in the field.
>>>>>>>And
>>>>>>>that's why I would never vote for him. He can't even sell his
>>>>>>>platform
>>>>>>>to moderate dems, let alone die-hard conservatives. If he managed to
>>>>>>>magically get to the oval office, he'd be a complete waste of time.
>>>>>>>He'd
>>>>>>>never get anything done because no congressperson (democrat or
>>>>>>>republican) who wanted to get re-elected could have anything to do
>>>>>>>with
>>>>>>>him. The same goes for Gravel and Paul too, as far as I'm concerned.
>>>>>>>They all have great ideas for the Perfect America but they give no
>>>>>>>indication that they will be able to put that agenda aside and work
>>>>>>>with
>>>>>>>the contentious, confused, inertial country we've got right now.
>>>>>>>We've
>>>>>>>just suffered through 8 years of an ideological, bull-headed
>>>>>>>president
>>>>>>>who knows what's best for everyone, despite abysmal approval ratings.
>>>>>>>I
>>>>>>>don't want a repeat, even if I share the ideology this time around.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>So when I'm looking at candidates, I'm not looking for the one that
>>>>>>>is
>>>>>>>the best reflection of me, I'm looking for the one that will best
>>>>>>>champion my overall values to everyone else. I'd like the candidate
>>>>>>>who
>>>>>>>is most likely to be able to convince the nation as a whole that a
>>>>>>>couple of steps to the left ("and then a jump to the ri-i-i-i-ight!")
>>>>>>>in
>>>>>>>our policies will do us all some good. Even though I don't agree with
>>>>>>>them issue for issue (and even on some issues that are really
>>>>>>>important
>>>>>>>to me) I actually think the Democratic front-runners are probably the
>>>>>>>best we've got using that criterion (and maybe Biden too, if he could
>>>>>>>just gain some traction).
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Just my 2 pyoonies.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Erik
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>--
>>>>>>http://ai.eecs.umich.edu/people/dreeves - - search://"Daniel Reeves"
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Build a man a fire, and he's warm for the
>>>>>>rest of the evening. Set a man on fire and
>>>>>>he's warm for the rest of his life.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>
>>
>>--
>>http://ai.eecs.umich.edu/people/dreeves - - search://"Daniel Reeves"
>>
>>"I don't like spinach and I'm glad I don't because if I liked it
>>I'd eat it, and I just hate it." -- (unknown)
>>
_________________________________________________________________
Kick back and relax with hot games and cool activities at the Messenger
Café. http://www.cafemessenger.com?ocid=TXT_TAGHM_SeptHMtagline1
|
