X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.0 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,SPF_SOFTFAIL autolearn=no version=3.2.2 Sender: -2.0 (spamval) -- NONE Return-Path: 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 l884mDux023204 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL) for ; Sat, 8 Sep 2007 00:48:13 -0400 Received: from tadpole.mr.itd.umich.edu (mx.umich.edu [141.211.14.133]) by newman.eecs.umich.edu (8.14.1/8.14.1) with ESMTP id l884lXSQ006365 for ; Sat, 8 Sep 2007 00:47:42 -0400 Received: FROM bay0-omc3-s21.bay0.hotmail.com (bay0-omc3-s21.bay0.hotmail.com [65.54.246.221]) BY tadpole.mr.itd.umich.edu ID 46E22978.6F15F.30203 ; 8 Sep 2007 00:47:52 -0400 Received: from hotmail.com ([10.6.19.95]) by bay0-omc3-s21.bay0.hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.3959); Fri, 7 Sep 2007 21:47:51 -0700 Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Fri, 7 Sep 2007 21:47:50 -0700 Message-ID: Received: from 76.170.117.138 by bl116fd.blu116.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Sat, 08 Sep 2007 04:47:49 GMT X-Originating-IP: [76.170.117.138] X-Originating-Email: [erevesz Æ hotmail.com] X-Sender: erevesz Æ hotmail.com In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed X-OriginalArrivalTime: 08 Sep 2007 04:47:50.0824 (UTC) FILETIME=[692C1A80:01C7F1D3] 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, 07 Sep 2007 21:47:49 -0700 To: klochner Æ eecs.umich.edu, dreeves Æ umich.edu Cc: etalviti Æ eecs.umich.edu, improvetheworld Æ umich.edu From: "Eva Revesz" Subject: Re: candidate calculator 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