Since it’s likely that who the next few Presidents are will strongly affect the probability of existential disaster, and because of the stupidly huge utility of existential risk reduction, the expected utility of a strategic vote for an electable candidate could be surprisingly high. Given the uncertainty of the effect of a protest vote, and the uncertainty of the US’s existence in a few election cycles (which is greater the more likely you believe a near-term existential disaster or Singularity to be), it could be higher than the expected utility of a protest vote.
I wonder how to decide what candidate is best on existential risk. I would guess military policy is the biggest component. Energy policy might be second. MNT research funding also matters, but candidates aren’t likely to have clear distinct positions on this, and I’m not sure whether more or less funding is good.
Ben: re what Steven is saying, think of polls. The candidates are strongly influenced by the voters before the election.
Ben: re what Steven is saying, think of polls. The candidates are strongly influenced by the voters before the election.
The kinds of people who are NOT influenced by polls are filtered out long before you get to the level of US Congress. At best, you may have a few core values that you decide trump your other values, and then use your other issues to create a mix that alienates the fewest potential allies on your core values.
Do you vote for people you disagree with just because it seems their announced policy choices were not influenced by polls or focus groups? Neither does anyone else.
Since it’s likely that who the next few Presidents are will strongly affect the probability of existential disaster, and because of the stupidly huge utility of existential risk reduction, the expected utility of a strategic vote for an electable candidate could be surprisingly high. Given the uncertainty of the effect of a protest vote, and the uncertainty of the US’s existence in a few election cycles (which is greater the more likely you believe a near-term existential disaster or Singularity to be), it could be higher than the expected utility of a protest vote.
I wonder how to decide what candidate is best on existential risk. I would guess military policy is the biggest component. Energy policy might be second. MNT research funding also matters, but candidates aren’t likely to have clear distinct positions on this, and I’m not sure whether more or less funding is good.
Ben: re what Steven is saying, think of polls. The candidates are strongly influenced by the voters before the election.
The kinds of people who are NOT influenced by polls are filtered out long before you get to the level of US Congress. At best, you may have a few core values that you decide trump your other values, and then use your other issues to create a mix that alienates the fewest potential allies on your core values.
Do you vote for people you disagree with just because it seems their announced policy choices were not influenced by polls or focus groups? Neither does anyone else.