Where do you want Kasich in your list since he hasn't dropped out yet?
above trump
Where do you want Kasich in your list since he hasn't dropped out yet?
Candidate | Rank Score | #1st place votes |
Ted Cruz | 174 | 10 |
Rubio | 145 | 4 |
Ben Carson | 144 | 0 |
Carly Fiorina | 138 | 0 |
Donald Trump | 135 | 4 |
John Kasich | 115 | 1 |
Jeb Bush | 88 | 1 |
Chris Christie | 74 | 0 |
Bernie Sanders | 60 | 0 |
Hillary Clinton | 27 | 0 |
above trump
Sorry, I'll get you in the next tally. I was working on the writeup when you posted.
Eh, technically, he gave them knowledge of good and evil, and presuming that they were already "good" implies that essentially the only new knowledge they gained was "evil". So if you want evil taught, well, okay then.
Nevertheless, if we do this kind of polling again, maybe there should be a SATAN option just for ****s and giggles. Not sure if it should be included in the tally or just as a line marking where the list becomes evil.
I'm basing my preferences on who I feel like has even the remotest bit of honesty in their character.
No problem...unless it ruined the stringent scientific methodology of your poll.
To your point about ranked voting. You were pretty adamant about people ranking every candidate. In the real world though, if ranked voting were in place, do we really think that every person would rank all the candidates? I wouldn't. In this case, I would probably rank my top 3, maybe 4 and leave the rest of my ballot unmarked. Those that weren't ranked by me would all get "zeros", wouldn't they?
I would like to see 'None of the Above' always offered as an option, and if 'None of the Above' is ranked highest the primary would be null and void with proposals made at the convention to adopt proposed candidates not of the previous list. It could be a way to 'write in' someone like Ron Paul and it might encourage people to drop out sooner so as to be eligible for the undercard if N.o.t.A. wins the first round
Much like a firearm, knowledge isn't good or evil, only what it's used for is.
... Yet you put Trump #1.
Okay.
... Yet you put Trump #1.
Okay.
Rubio
Cruz
Fiorina
Kasich
Bush
Carson
Christie
Sanders - Clinton
Early on, Carson would have been higher... but he's just shown himself to not be ready for the highest office in the world. He's a great guy, I really do like him... and maybe he can have a political impact in someone's administration. But President.... not right now. Bush, Christie, and Kasich are all pretty much tied in that area of candidates that need to drop.
Fiorina will be gone after NH, since she's being left out of tomorrow's debate. I liked her early on, too... but she has no chance.
What about John McAfee?
Jamil, good example of showing how first past the post is a poor method of choosing someone.
Especially OUR system. One great tragedy of the two party system is that it assures that third parties will always have fringe candidates.
Ranked-order voting isn't perfect, as I pointed out in my novella. Also, with the current system it's certainly easier to pick just one of two main presidential candidates. But I just want something that fixes the two parties' hold on American politics. I think that's kinda what makes the elites always win. And they'd probably still win with ROV. Big money candidates will probably always have a big advantage over others. But giving other candidates a more equal chance to be heard is a lot better than what we have now.
Or you could just get the money out of politics (I don't know how) leaving just the ideas. Prolly not
Need you ask?
INGO wouldn't be pleased about what it would take to get money out of politics.