Instant Runoff: A presidential preference poll
Kari Chisholm
Last June, I invited BlueOregon readers to learn more about Instant Runoff Voting by participating in a gubernatorial preference primary. Of course, by last June, the primaries were over - and so it was a little silly. (Not as silly as declaring your favorite ice cream, though...)
And last month, BlueOregon's first buzz poll asked you to declare a single presidential preference. Whoo boy, did I ever hear complaints!
Not only did I leave out Al Gore, but I made you pick a single favorite. So, without further ado... an Instant Runoff Voting -style presidential preference poll. It includes all the announced candidates - plus the two as-yet-unannounced candidates named "Al".
Without further ado... Vote now. Who do you support for president?
Be sure to rank all of your presidential preferences. Your votes won't be "wasted" and we'll get a clearer picture of who you support for president.
And as long as we've got a presidential politics thread open, discuss...
 |
More Recent Posts | |
Albert Kaufman |
|
Guest Column |
|
Kari Chisholm |
|
Kari Chisholm |
Final pre-census estimate: Oregon's getting a sixth congressional seat |
Albert Kaufman |
Polluted by Money - How corporate cash corrupted one of the greenest states in America |
Guest Column |
|
Albert Kaufman |
Our Democrat Representatives in Action - What's on your wish list? |
Kari Chisholm |
|
Guest Column |
|
Kari Chisholm |
|
connect with blueoregon
4:09 a.m.
Feb 5, '07
Interesting...here is how I ranked the candidates:
Al Gore
Barack Obama
John Edwards
Wesley Clark
Bill Richardson
Joe Biden
Tom Vilsack
Chris Dodd
Hillary Clinton
Mike Gravel
Dennis Kucinich
Al Sharpton
8:35 a.m.
Feb 5, '07
Gore Richardson Edwards Obama
Feb 5, '07
Richardson Edwards Clark Gore
(Unless we can draft Dean.)
8:55 a.m.
Feb 5, '07
Richardson Edwards Gore Biden
Feb 5, '07
Clinton and Edwards do not have my support.
Until now, Clark has:
We need change, we don't need 28 years, or more, of Clinton/Bush. It has been my hope that the Democrats could, or would, but as it stands my registration will remain No Party Affiliation and this Old Logger is going to take a closer look at the hippie-dippy tree-hugger Green Party.
Remind me once again the difference between Coke and Pepsi?
10:39 a.m.
Feb 5, '07
Thanks Kari, that was fun!
I for one am kinda surprised how poorly Hillary's doing - #5 as of now. It will be a tough race for her, but she's aces in my book (but certainly not the only candidate I like, nor my #1 pick.)
As for Gore, people might be interested to review Ross Perot's interview with Larry King, in which he endorsed W 5 days before the '00 election. Lots to hold your head and moan about, but he has some good points about Gore's liabilities that you can bet the righties haven't forgotten.
Gore sure looks good now, but he'd have to be ready to deal with some serious swiftboating.
Feb 5, '07
Obama Gore Clark Richardson
Feb 5, '07
Does anyone actually think Al Gore would be foolish enough to run for president again? Even John Kerry realized the futility of attempting another expensive mistake.
12:25 p.m.
Feb 5, '07
I happen to think Al Gore would make a great candidate, but I don't believe he is going to run. It's worth noting that at the end of 2006, he shut down all his remaining political committees.
Then again, Donna Brazile thinks he might announce - after winning an Oscar.
12:27 p.m.
Feb 5, '07
how does it deal with ties? The last few runthroughs, Obama and Edwards are tied--and it kicks Edwards. Is it just first listed? Obviously in a full election ties would be way-rare.
Feb 5, '07
Barbara Lee speaks for me. Russ Feingold is bold. Lynn Woolsey won't foolsey around. Almost anyone on any street corner would be preferable to the rest.
Feb 5, '07
I love it, Hillary trails Dennis - ahahahahaha
Isn't it funny how Progressives aften don't like Populists? Here's something odd to think about, if the climate for Rs in 08 is a little worse than now, Dennis could actually win the General...
He won't win the Primary so he can have my emotional and philosophical vote. For those of you who think money speaks too loudly - he sure ain't a corporate or media favorite.
1:54 p.m.
Feb 5, '07
Clark Gore Richardson Obama Clinton
2:08 p.m.
Feb 5, '07
I ranked Hillary last and Edwards right above her.
I swear, Edwards is trying to get even further down my list of candidates I don't want to vote for. He's once again subscribed an e-mail address of mine without permission. And he sends tons of e-mails to it.
Feb 5, '07
Clinton Edwards Obama Richardson
I hope Al Gore wins his Oscar and the Nobel Peace Prize too, but I can't vote for a candidate who isn't running.
Additionally, it's hard to take seriously any poll that shows Hillary Clinton running in 6th place -- behind Dennis Kucinich no less!
2:53 p.m.
Feb 5, '07
I happen to think Al Gore would make a great candidate, but I don't believe he is going to run. It's worth noting that at the end of 2006, he shut down all his remaining political committees.
That may be true, but this poll isn't measuring likelihood of running--it's measuring support. The results are pretty fascinating, too. Gore and Obama are currently the 1-2 candidates by this system, with Al getting 60% in the final ballot. On the first ballot, however, he's got more than twice as many votes as Obama.
The Richardson result is also a little surprising. Is this because Oregonians know him more than the national electorate, because we're smart and know a good candidate when we see one, or because Richardson is a stronger dark horse candidate than people expected? Hmm...
Feb 5, '07
"Isn't it funny how Progressives aften [sic] don't like Populists?" The feeling is mutual. Its hard for me to believe there is so much support for Democratic candidates that do not speak to economic issues.
4:18 p.m.
Feb 5, '07
Off topic... but Gordon Smith just voted to sustain the filibuster against the non-binding sense of Congress vote opposing Bush's troop escalation. So much for Smith's fraudulent pander-bearing back in December where he called the Bush failure in Iraq bordering on criminal.
We all knew Smith was full of crap, but he just proved it in spades.
I ask again for the umpteenth time.. who are we going to run at this fraudulent warmongering puke?
BTW, on the topic... I am looking seriously at Richardson. Real foreign policy creds, governor, western swing state, big appeal in the mountain west and hispanic cross-over appeal, and most of all, not a Senator or re-tread form previous runs.
4:30 p.m.
Feb 5, '07
To further elucidate my picks (I know you are all on pins and needles about my picks I'm sure... snark)
Gore --- (but since I'm 95% sure he's not running, the list starts below) Richardson Clark --- (below this I am so-so at best) Edwards Obama --- (below this I am really not in favor at all, and would need a strong clothes-pin for the nose) Dodd Clinton Kuccinich Vilsak Biden Sharpton Gravel
Feb 5, '07
Richardson Gore (though I doubt he'll run) Obama Vilsack Edwards Clark Clinton Dodd
Jeff said: The Richardson result is also a little surprising. Is this because Oregonians know him more than the national electorate, because we're smart and know a good candidate when we see one, or because Richardson is a stronger dark horse candidate than people expected? Hmm...
Or all of the above plus more: The West is the future of the Democratic party, the Hispanic vote is critical, energy and diplomacy are the top issues, and governors fare better than legislators in presidential races, not only because of their perception as executive leaders but also their experience in formulating a broad governing vision, rather than focusin on legislative details. For all these reasons, Richardson is the one to watch.
Feb 5, '07
Kari, I'm not a big fan of your poll for one reason. Gore isnt going to run. I think Gore would be an amazing candidate if he did run, but I have a hard time believing that he's going to, he says he's not running, and seems to believe that he can have the best impact on the world by going arround talking to people about global warming rather than running for President and having to worry about other issues. I think this is a major flaw in the poll because it throws the results towards a fantasy candidate and skews the real picture. The polls that have been running at DailyKos for a while now have been smart in that they excluded candidates like Gore who say they arent running and have made no moves towards a run. All that said, I ranked it as such: 1. Edwards 2. Obama 3. Richardson 4. Clinton 5. Gore I've already discussed my frustration with Gore's inclusion in this poll, if he actually did run he would be #1, however, I moved him significantly down the list because I strongly believe he wont.
Feb 5, '07
Interesting exercise.
One thing I don't get is that the support for an instant-runoff system seems to come mostly from progressives. IR is designed to identify the candidate with the broadest appeal, and would seem to me to be ideally suited to choosing someone fairly moderate. The current system is much more conducive to electing a true lefty, which would happen in a scenario in which a bunch of moderates and right-wingers split their votes.
So where is the political constituency for a change to IR voting?
John
PS. Let's see this exercise for the Democratic candidates for Gordo's senate seat!
8:38 p.m.
Feb 5, '07
Cwech wrote Kari, I'm not a big fan of your poll for one reason. Gore isnt going to run.
I agree, which is why I wrote above I don't believe he is going to run.
That said, please understand that this isn't the first nor the last poll we're going to do here. Last time, we left Gore out - and we got lots of complaints.
With IRV, you can at least see where things land. I'm going to see if I can backwards-engineer - and provide non-Gore results. (Which won't just be the same as the next-to-last round results... since some of his votes might shift around differently.)
Feb 5, '07
That was interesting and all, but isn't this the same result with a standard primary? Gore wins in either case. What am I missing?
Feb 5, '07
I am intrigued by the assertion of "progressive" by most visitors to this site. If any real thought were put into what progress this list of candidates offers, the logical decision would be Hillary. The simple fact of the matter is that we have lived under apartheid in this country since its creation. There is not progress without representation. We can hide behind our "values"... but what do those values represent if they support a power structure that is dominated by white men (a group that I am proud to be a member). Hillary represents an opportunity to truly break the structure. Or, at least cripple it to a point where we can "fix" it. Just a thought.
Feb 5, '07
Tony, So your suggestion is that to bolster my progressive creds I should vote for a poll driven corporate tool BOR abridging candidate on the basis of her gender? Hmmm, in that case I need to find any black-(etc mixed race)female with whatever politics (C Rice?) and vote that way? My vote then becomes a complete matter of bigotry since it based not on issues but some race/gender factor...
Forgive my apartheid attitude but I'd rather stay separated from NY and the Sen from there by nearly 3K miles. Frankly, she's symptom of what's wrong rather than a cure.
Feb 6, '07
Gore Edwards Richardson Obama Clinton
Seems like a bunch (and how big a bunch is something only Kari knows) of Kucinich supporters tried to game this poll.
It would be interesting to run it again without Gore, if indeed there is no chance of him running. I suspect Edwards would win then.
9:36 a.m.
Feb 6, '07
Hillary represents an opportunity to truly break the structure.
Actually, a vote for Hillary isn't a vote for all womankind. If she had been married to, say Howard Dean, we wouldn't be talking about her. It represents a regressive, royalist impulse in American politics, not a great step forward for women.
Condi, that would be a move ahead (though politically, a move backward).
9:54 a.m.
Feb 6, '07
After seeing all of these folks (except Gore) speak at the DNC winter meeting, I want a candidate with:
Edwards' compassion and speech-making ability Obama's seriousness and charisma Richardson's foreign policy experience Clark's military experience And Hillary's balls
3:35 p.m.
Feb 6, '07
Et Tu Jenny? Better redefine "balls" for me.
My observation of Hillary as senator is of a cautious, poll-driven, mealymouthed triangulator who, when conditions warrant will stake out a narrowly defined "liberal" issue or is able to provide a rabble rousing stemwinder for the faithful at the Renaissance Weekend retreat.
I'm not seeing any more "balls" there than I am seeing on Kerry, Biden, Schumer, or any of the rest of our "Leaders" in the senate.
<hr/>The two Dems that have made the most noise, say around the war and civil liberties issues in the Senate are Byrd and Murtha, two men as deeply compromised by the senatorial spoils system as Tom Delay and his ilk.
4:21 p.m.
Feb 6, '07
I suspect the Kucinich folks are stuffing the ballot box. Note that he only gains a pitiful 23 votes in the elimination rounds (as of this post). Kari, can you see the raw data? In my experience stuffers tend to turn in many identical ballots all at once, frequently with only their candidate as #1 selected. Just curious to see if that's the case here.
How pathetic does one have to be to stuff a BO straw poll? It's bad enough you support a vanity candidate, but do you have to screw up the poll data for the rest of us who are actually curious about the candidates' relative support?
4:30 p.m.
Feb 6, '07
PS I love IRV because it feels so good to stick Joe Biden below all the vanity candidates at the bottom of the heap. God, I loathe that sell-out...
Feb 6, '07
Kucinich Gore Obama Edwards Vilsack
Yes, I was one of the "pathetic" ones who voted for Dennis. I just happen to agree with his positions more than those of any of the other candidates. But the claims of Gil and Nate that I am "stuffing the ballot box" and trying to "game this poll" are laughable. Since moving to Oregon in 2005, I have had no contact (neither personally nor electronically) with any other Kucinich supporters here. And no, I was not referred to this website nor to this poll by any Kucinich supporters from other states. I guess it's always easier to believe a conspiracy theory than to accept the reality that your favorite candidate got squashed. BTW, the "pitiful" 23 votes that Dennis added in the elimination rounds exceeded the elimination round additions of any of the other candidates except Gore and Obama. Perhaps Nate could reveal to us which "vanity candidate" he supports.
10:03 p.m.
Feb 6, '07
For what it's worth, the poll had Kucinich at slightly above Hillary for the #6 position for quite a while - and then suddenly, nearly instantly, had him at #2.
Somebody gamed the poll. Which is amusing, but it doesn't hardly matter, of course.
4:24 p.m.
Feb 7, '07
LB, at no time did I accuse you of stuffing the ballot box. I'm sure Kucinich got a significant number of legitimate votes (I'd buy anything under about 50 1st place votes as at least credible), however the idea that he would out-poll Obama and Edwards combined is something that all but his most delusional supporters would probably acknowledge as unlikely.
In an IRV poll, increasing your vote total by 20% (of their initial total)is pathetic (which, incidentally describes the performance of the candidate I voted for as well; read on...). Candidates who improved more include:
Gore (107%) Obama (98%) Edwards (27%) Richardson (distinctly second tier) came close at 15%.
You and other Kucinich supporters are free to support whomever you wish from now, right on up to the convention, when someone else will officially be nominated (and even beyond, if you wish). However, hopefully you will agree that voting multiple times (probably somewhere in the vicinity of 80-100 times) in a BO straw poll is kind of pathetic (an adjective I used to describe those who stuffed the poll, not the well-intentioned voters like yourself who voted once for the candidate they most approved of).
<h2>In answer to your question as to who I supported, I voted for the guy who has served in the US House, as Ambassador to the UN, Secretary of Energy, Governor of New Mexico, and Chairman of the Democratic Governor's Association which this past year helped elect the first Democratic majority of governors since 1994. Oh, yeah, and he just negotiated a ceasefire in the Sudan in his time off.</h2>