I was serious, but thought i addressed your concerns by suggesting we 
take the top several candidates based on positions & subsequently 
decide amongst them.  That seems to me like the most disciplined way to 
conduct the pact negotiations.	If your favorite candidate doesn't 
even make the top 3 or 4 choices based on how his/her positions agree 
with your own, I think you should be evicted from the pact for voting 
like an idiot (that was a joke).

-k


On Fri, 7 Sep 2007, Matt Rudary wrote:

> 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"
>>> 
>