i read it, and I disagree. I think it’s irrational to expect everyone to do what he suggests, and it only works if everyone does it.
Edit: Using the word “strategic” is probably misleading. Eliezer proposes a particular strategy—vote for someone you actually like, regardless of popularity or perceived likelihood of winning. It’s still a strategy, and voting is still a game. So the argument isn’t really about whether or not to vote “strategically”, it’s about which strategy one should use.
In my original comment I argue for the meta-strategy of changing the electoral system to one that isn’t as broken as plurality systems are. As well, I argue that it still makes sense given the current system to continue to vote for the least evil candidate who has a shot at winning.
Edit: Using the word “strategic” is probably misleading. Eliezer proposes a particular strategy—vote for someone you actually like, regardless of popularity or perceived likelihood of winning.
More to the point he rejects using “strategic voting” that is based off strategies for survival when votes are all public and retaliation is expected—where the consequences of the guy you didn’t vote for getting in are far more serious than whether it is the guy you prefer. This is rejected in favor of pulling the rope sideways.
Are there any good examples of the long strategy working? Ron Paul seemed like a potential case of exactly that, and in 2008 he was rallying support on the internet and raking in serious political campaign contributions. He got a small chunk of the popular vote and raised the profile of libertarianism a little. However, a few years later the media have still apparently decided that he is unelectable and give him far less coverage than the “mainstream” candidates. (I’m not a Ron Paul fan myself, but he should appeal to the fiscal conservative base and he seems to be a man of integrity.)
Is there a good template for what the “long strategy” working would look like?
There have certainly been candidates elected in the U.S. who at some earlier time would have been considered completely unelectable, but of course in each case it’s possible to point to a variety of other causes for why they became electable besides the decision of voters to vote for them. Which is also what I would expect to see if the long strategy worked, since there are always lots of things going on.
What does “man of integrity” mean? I’m willing to tentatively accept that Ron Paul didn’t write material like this:
I’ve been told not to talk, but these stooges don’t scare me. Threats or no threats, I’ve laid bare the coming race war in our big cities. The federal-homosexual cover-up on AIDS (my training as a physician helps me see through this one.) The Bohemian Grove—perverted, pagan playground of the powerful. Skull & Bones: the demonic fraternity...
I’ll even grant for the sake of argument that he has some more-or-less good reason for not revealing the name of the staffer(s) who published this in his name. But if I were John Stewart, hearing Paul say it’s enough for him to have a smaller base who “gets the message”, I’d have to ask about it and give him a chance to say that he’d never hire anyone like that for his hypothetical administration. Assuming that he does want to lose the white supremacist vote.
i read it, and I disagree. I think it’s irrational to expect everyone to do what he suggests, and it only works if everyone does it.
Edit: Using the word “strategic” is probably misleading. Eliezer proposes a particular strategy—vote for someone you actually like, regardless of popularity or perceived likelihood of winning. It’s still a strategy, and voting is still a game. So the argument isn’t really about whether or not to vote “strategically”, it’s about which strategy one should use.
In my original comment I argue for the meta-strategy of changing the electoral system to one that isn’t as broken as plurality systems are. As well, I argue that it still makes sense given the current system to continue to vote for the least evil candidate who has a shot at winning.
More to the point he rejects using “strategic voting” that is based off strategies for survival when votes are all public and retaliation is expected—where the consequences of the guy you didn’t vote for getting in are far more serious than whether it is the guy you prefer. This is rejected in favor of pulling the rope sideways.
Are there any good examples of the long strategy working? Ron Paul seemed like a potential case of exactly that, and in 2008 he was rallying support on the internet and raking in serious political campaign contributions. He got a small chunk of the popular vote and raised the profile of libertarianism a little. However, a few years later the media have still apparently decided that he is unelectable and give him far less coverage than the “mainstream” candidates. (I’m not a Ron Paul fan myself, but he should appeal to the fiscal conservative base and he seems to be a man of integrity.)
Is there a good template for what the “long strategy” working would look like?
There have certainly been candidates elected in the U.S. who at some earlier time would have been considered completely unelectable, but of course in each case it’s possible to point to a variety of other causes for why they became electable besides the decision of voters to vote for them. Which is also what I would expect to see if the long strategy worked, since there are always lots of things going on.
What does “man of integrity” mean? I’m willing to tentatively accept that Ron Paul didn’t write material like this:
I’ll even grant for the sake of argument that he has some more-or-less good reason for not revealing the name of the staffer(s) who published this in his name. But if I were John Stewart, hearing Paul say it’s enough for him to have a smaller base who “gets the message”, I’d have to ask about it and give him a chance to say that he’d never hire anyone like that for his hypothetical administration. Assuming that he does want to lose the white supremacist vote.
If you have, in fact, read it then I no longer have an explanation as to why you are engaging with the straw man.