I voted for Clinton first and Feingold second.  It then told me my vote counted for Feingold.  Weird.  I know there's a system in place that calculates it, but, considering I am (I think) one of the first to vote, how on earth did my vote NOT count for Clinton this early in the poll?

Gorebots?  Why the heck do you have all these minor candidates and can't bring yourself to include Gore? What's with that? He won the 2000 election. He's been making stunning brave speeches showing a total grasp of the domestic and world situation. If he were president, the economy would still be in great shape, thousands of people would not be dead, we'd be paying attention to global warming and other environmental problems, we'd still be a member in good standing of the world community, the United States would not be known for torture and kangaroo courts, and I venture to say that the skyline in New York would still be standing. Just speculation of course. I think he has a better chance of being elected than, say, Feingold, or Hilary for that matter. So why didn't you include him?

It looks to me like DailyKos has a belief that there are 3 criteria that can lead one to believe that someone might be running for the Democratic nomination for President. Markos' 3 criteria are

1. Candidates who have expressed interest in running

2. Candidates who have a campaign apparatus working on their behalf

3. Candidates who have a leadership PAC like everyone else on the list

He includes #3 above because Hillary Clinton does not fit the first two categories. Hillary has a Leadership PAC. I do not believe that it means that we should assume that she has ANY plans to run. I personally don't think she will run, but I have been wrong before! I assume that Gore does not fit ANY of these categories.

Chris

This is my first 'real world' experience with IRV, and it was really interesting and informative. I appreciate you providing a link from DailyKos here.

I have Libertarian friends who have been pushing IRV for years so I had some concept of how it worked, and I know Michael Badnarik, the 2004 Libertarian Presidential nominee, and although he was not directly elected as their nominee via an IRV vote, it was effectively similar to one. There were 3 men campaigning to be the nominee. In the debate they had at the party convention the night before the vote, Michael put on quite a show, and convinced many that he was the second best candidate. He had been a far distant 3rd choice for a while, after the 3rd man joined the fight and pumped big bucks into his candidancy.

When the first ballot took place, Michael got the second highest number of votes. The third place vote-getter was eliminated, as IRV would do, and then he threw his support behind Michael, and so, as the 2nd choice of some of the voters and 1st place of some of the voters, he ended up winning the nomination over the man who had garnered many more votes in the first ballot.

Even better than that demochoice.org poll, which only has IRV and doesn't show a lot of the depth that could be in the data there, is this poll:

http://betterpolls.com/do/17

Counted by IRV, VRR (Condorcet), Raw, IRNR, and shown with histograms of how people vote -10 to 10 on each choice. And it gives you two write-in slots for your fantasy choices.

I was curious, how was Feingold's support prior to his coming out for censure?

I certainly hope choices arn't being driven by emotional responses to the censure issue.

Whether or not Gore is officially "running" is besides the point. You don't need to have declared yet. The election is over 2 1/2 years away.

This is a straw poll to see who WE want for president. Many people would like to see Gore won, and he is certainly doing what he can to stay in the news. That is partly because he cares about his country and has much to say.  

The election is still over two years away. I think it is ridiculous not to include Gore in these polls, who would almost surely outrank several of the other candidates.  

Gore had a unique experience - basically a coup d'etat.  He might be feeling just a little burned, but he's out there fighting for his country, has clearly learned a good deal, and I think would accept a draft. Maybe he would refuse to go in unless he was persuaded we were going to have a fair election - which the way things are set up now with computer voting and biased elections divisions chiefs, we are not.

I'm not even that much of an advocate for Gore - I'd like someone with Gore's skill and intelligence and experience, but a little more charisma.  I don't see that person out there.  I like several of the others somewhat too.  I just think it's ridiculous not to include Gore on the list of potential candidates. He could almost surely be persuaded to throw his hat back in if he saw some enthusiasm and was confident that the voting would be fair this time.

Wish you had Montana Gov. Brian Schweitzer, he is first choice for me. Had to choose other.

I'd like to nominate Jimmy Carter.  Seriously.  At least for VP.

Interesting, but where's my voter-verified paper trail?

I've always liked the IRV concept, although I'm not sure it's a valid system with entries like "other" and "unsure" on the ballot! And I agree with the commenter who wondered where Gore was?

My first choice was Feingold, who's running away with it right now, but my second choice would've been Gore had he been there.

At a minimum, "other" needs to be replaced with a write-in prompt, as it would be on a real ballot.