I went to the opinion-polls forum, and noticed that the polls there are in the form of messages like this one. At that forum, I've clicked on the option to post a thread, and I assume that that is the correct way to introduce a poll. So here is my poll: Though the presidential election is over, I'm interested in people's _actual_ preference among the candidates. So: Rank, in order of preference, the following candidates in the recent presidential election (or as many of them as you want to: In alphabetical order by last name, the candidates are: Hillary Clinton, Gary Johnson, Jill Stein, Donald Trump. Rank them (or as many of them as you want to, in order of preference. For example, here's my ballot: 1. Jill Stein 2. Hillary Clinton 3. Donald Trump 4. Gary Johnson The ballots will be counted by the popular Instant-Runoff (IRV) rank-count rule: Instant-Runoff: Repeatedly, delete from the rankings, the candidate who currently is at the top of fewest rankings. When one candidate is at the top of most of the rankings, s/he wins. Thank you, November29
1) Donald Trump 2) Gary Johnson the other two are socialist garbage that would not even warrant the energy to vote for.
1. Hillary Clinton 2. Jill Stein 3. Gary Johnson 4. Angry Orange Adult Infant But, really, Bernie Sanders would have been better than any of them. I think ranking all the Repug candidates (17, or however many there were stuffed in that clown car) would make for a more interesting poll.
I thank you for your vote. The winner, by Instant-Runoff, so far is: Jill Stein. I designated Instant-Runoff as this poll's official count-rule because it's well known, and is the voting-system endorsed by the Greens. But in an immediately-subsequent post, I'll report the winners by some other good polling rank-count methods. You wrote: But Bernie withdrew as soon as the Democrats claimed that Hillary won the primary. So now he can't really be rightly included in a poll for the presidency. Bernie told us to vote for Hillary. No way, Bernie. By whoever counts the votes, we were given the choice between Hillary & Donald. Don't let anyone tell you that they were "the 2 choices". Even NPR admits that people dislike both Hillary & Donald. I boycotted the election, rather than vote for either of those two phony "choices". You wrote: Sure, but I wanted to include some progressives, some Regpugnocrats, and some Repugnocrat-like conservative populists. So, if I'd included 17 Repugnocrats, that would have made the candidate-list so long that fewer people would have voted. As I said, in an immediately-subsequent post, I'll report the winner by various other rank-counts. November29
Not only is Jill the winner by Instant-Runoff. She's also the "Condorcet winner" ...the candidate who'd beat each one of the others in separate 2-candidate elections. And that also means that, whatever your preference, whichever part of the political spectrum you prefer, Jill is the best you can get. Jill is the candidate who has a majority over everyone else. Anyone you like better than Jill won't be able to get a majority against candidates you like less. I admit that Hillary's domestic policies are a lot better than those of Trump. As for the matter of peace vs war, Hillary isn't very promising. It isn't clear whether Trump would be worse than her militarily. He's more peaceful toward Russia, but I don't know if that extends to other countries, or whether he'd be more peaceful, overall, than Hillary. But, because we don't really know which one would be worse militarily, and because Hillary is most definitely better domestically, then I'd prefer Hillary to Donald. (I ranked Hillary over Donald on my ballot for this poll.) But, it seems to me that, in every regard, on every policy question, Jill is incomparably better than Hillary. Hillary is notorious, infamous, for being a crook, and someone who's agenda is the rich-corporate agenda. Jill referred to Hillary as "The Corruption-Queen". As I said, I thank you for voting in this poll. I don't ask the Repugnicans why they prefer Trump, because there'd be no point. But you're a progressive--I appreciate it that you 2nd-ranked Jill. Ok, but, regarding what policy proposal or position is Hillary better than Jill? People ask how Jill would pay for the things that she offers. Well, for one thing, trillions of dollars per year would be saved just by getting out of all of our unnecessary wars. As an additional bonus, lots of lives would be saved too. Hillary, from what she said, sounds like she wants to expand those wars, where Jill wants to get out of them. Which one advocates a $15/hr minimum wage? Universal medical coverage like Europe, & the rest of the industrialized world? No more corporate "personhood"? No more "money qualifies as free-speech"? So, what, in your opinion, is the comparison between Jill & Hillary? November29
