I can't tell -- were you serious about #3 and #4 or do you just not want
to do this? I'm willing to join in the voting bloc, but like Erik I
specifically *do not* want to choose a candidate based only on their
reported positions on the issues.
Matt
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"
>>
|
