Try Your Hand! - An Approval Voting Experiment

This is a "non-scientific" experiment to see how well MyDD users might be able to express their preferences from among progressive presidential candidates. This will not be a normal poll, first because I am arbitrarily limiting the field of available candidates in order to avoid debates regarding which candidates would qualify as "truly progressive." If this were an actual national election, no such arbitrary limitation of potential candidates would be appropriate at all.

Also, owing to the technical limits of the options available to me as an ordinary user on this site, I will not be able to conduct this poll according to a "secret ballot" methodology.

I am arbitrarily qualifying the field of available candidates as "truly progressive" based strictly upon the manner in which they voted on the recent Alito confirmation cloture decision in the Senate.
____

24 Democrats and one Independent voted "No" for cloture on the Alito filibuster.

They were:

Bayh, Ind.;
Biden,Del.;
Boxer, Calif.;
Clinton, N.Y.;
Dayton, Minn.;
Dodd, Conn.;
Durbin, Ill.;
Feingold, Wis.;
Feinstein, Calif.;
Kennedy, Mass.;
Kerry, Mass.;
Lautenberg, N.J.;
Leahy, Vt.;
Levin, Mich.;
Menendez, N.J.;
Mikulski, Md.;
Murray, Wash.;
Obama, Ill,;
Reed, R.I.;
Reid, Nev.;
Sarbanes, Md.;
Schumer, N.Y.;
Stabenow, Mich.;
Wyden, Ore.

The Independent who voted "No" was:

Jeffords, Vt.
___

This voting experiment, though far from perfect, is extremely simple. It's primary goal is to provide some new insights into how MyDDers evaluate candidates. Choosing a "best" candidate is not the goal here.

You can simply list the set of names of candidates that you approve of in a comment. And additional comments regarding your opinion of how well this experiment is working out would be welcome also.
____

Here are my (somewhat ad hoc.) provisos:

# There will be two days, starting on Wednesday morning, March 22, 2006 in which users will have a "window" in which to specify from one to eight of the field of 24 "qualified" candidates; each candidate you specify will receive one vote. The eight candidates who receive the greatest number of votes by the morning of Friday, March 24, will remain in the running. In case of ties, I will break them by pulling numbers out of a cup.

# Between the morning of Friday, March 24, and Sunday, March 26, users will have a window in which to give one vote to from one to four of the eight remaining candidates. Again, any ties will be decided as described above.

# Between the morning of Sunday, March 26, and Tuesday, March 28, users will have a window in which to give one vote to from one to two of the four remaining candidates.

# Between the morning of Tuesday, March 28, and Thursday, March 30, users will have a window in which to give one vote to one of the two remaining contenders.
_____

It would probably be wise to remember that this exercise is merely a semi-formal experiment.

Please participate!

Tags: sequential approval voting, voting issues (all tags)

Comments

7 Comments

Re: Try Your Hand! - An Approval Voting Experiment

Okay. These choices are harder than you might think. But, as of this moment, Here are seven candidates (out of a possible eight) who are getting one approval vote from me:

Boxer, Calif.; 3 YYY
Dodd, Conn.; 4 YYY
Feingold, Wis.; 5 YYY
Kennedy, Mass.; 5 YYY
Leahy, Vt.; 4 YYY
Reed, R.I.; 4 YYY
Jeffords, Vt. 5 YYY

Of course, this list will necessarily narrow when we get to the four-choice runoff. (Note, I reserve the right to be inadvertently foolish.)

by blues 2006-03-22 03:46AM | 0 recs
Re: Try Your Hand! - An Approval Voting Experiment
Boxer, CA
Feingold, WI
by teknofyl 2006-03-22 10:27AM | 0 recs
Always up for an experiment

So I assume you mean either a progressive candidate for Pres, or for Senate.  It might make a difference.

Dodd, Conn.;
Feingold, Wis.;
Kennedy, Mass.;
Lautenberg, N.J.;
Levin, Mich.;
Mikulski, Md.;
Murray, Wash.;
Obama, Ill,;

by The lurking ecologist 2006-03-22 03:09PM | 0 recs
Re: Always up for an experiment

Well, the intention here was that these would be potential presidential candidates. The question of whether any given individual among these possible presidential candidates would actually be willing to run, and serve, would seem to be merely one more factor that could be reflected in our choices. I would guess.

by blues 2006-03-22 09:03PM | 0 recs
Re: Always up for an experiment

So far, Feingold, Wis., is well out of the gate. Clinton, N.Y., however, isn't getting any traction thus far on our rather muddy MyDD racetrack.

by blues 2006-03-22 09:16PM | 0 recs
Re: Try Your Hand! - An Approval Voting Experiment

I started this poll at about 5:00 AM EST, Wednesday, and it's now time to tally results from the magnificent 3 (Including myself!!!). (Actually, it's 9:45 AM EST, Friday, so I should have done this 4 hrs. and 45 mins. ago. But I was a tad hung over this morning. Sorry.)

Here are the results:

Boxer, Calif.;
Dodd, Conn.;
Feingold, Wis.;
Kennedy, Mass.;
Leahy, Vt.;
Reed, R.I.;
Jeffords, Vt.
___

Boxer, CA
Feingold, WI
_
___

Dodd, Conn.;
Feingold, Wis.;
Kennedy, Mass.;
Lautenberg, N.J.;
Levin, Mich.;
Mikulski, Md.;
Murray, Wash.;
Obama, Ill,;
_
___

So that's the raw data.

To boil it down a bit, we have:

Boxer, Calif.; -> 2
Dodd, Conn.; -> 2
Feingold, Wis.; -> 3
Kennedy, Mass.; -> 2
Lautenberg, N.J.; -> 1
Leahy, Vt.; -> 1
Levin, Mich.; -> 1
Mikulski, Md.; -> 1
Murray, Wash.; -> 1
Reed, R.I.; -> 1
Jeffords, Vt. -> 1
Obama, Ill,; -> 1
_
___

So now, we have four "survivors" (Note the odd alphabetical syndrome!):

Boxer, Calif.;
Dodd, Conn.;
Feingold, Wis.;
Kennedy, Mass.;
_
___

So, your mission now is to choose two out of these four finalists, and the two you choose will each get one vote (and the final choice will be between the remaining two).

(I should reiterate the initial polling stipulations:

This is a "non-scientific" experiment to see how well MyDD users might be able to express their preferences from among progressive presidential candidates. This will not be a normal poll, first because I am arbitrarily limiting the field of available candidates in order to avoid debates regarding which candidates would qualify as "truly progressive." If this were an actual national election, no such arbitrary limitation of potential candidates would be appropriate at all.

Also, owing to the technical limits of the options available to me as an ordinary user on this site, I will not be able to conduct this poll according to a "secret ballot" methodology.

I am arbitrarily qualifying the field of available candidates as "truly progressive" based strictly upon the manner in which they voted on the recent Alito confirmation cloture decision in the Senate.
_
___

24 Democrats and one Independent voted "No" for cloture on the Alito filibuster.

They were:

Bayh, Ind.;
Biden,Del.;
Boxer, Calif.;
Clinton, N.Y.;
Dayton, Minn.;
Dodd, Conn.;
Durbin, Ill.;
Feingold, Wis.;
Feinstein, Calif.;
Kennedy, Mass.;
Kerry, Mass.;
Lautenberg, N.J.;
Leahy, Vt.;
Levin, Mich.;
Menendez, N.J.;
Mikulski, Md.;
Murray, Wash.;
Obama, Ill,;
Reed, R.I.;
Reid, Nev.;
Sarbanes, Md.;
Schumer, N.Y.;
Stabenow, Mich.;
Wyden, Ore.

The Independent who voted "No" was:

Jeffords, Vt.
_
___

This voting experiment, though far from perfect, is extremely simple. It's primary goal is to provide some new insights into how MyDDers evaluate candidates. Choosing a "best" candidate is not the goal here.

You can simply list the set of names of candidates that you approve of in a comment. And additional comments regarding your opinion of how well this experiment is working out would be welcome also.
_
___

Here are my (somewhat ad hoc.) provisos:

# There will be two days, starting on Wednesday morning, March 22, 2006 in which users will have a "window" in which to specify from one to eight of the field of 24 "qualified" candidates; each candidate you specify will receive one vote. The eight candidates who receive the greatest number of votes by the morning of Friday, March 24, will remain in the running. In case of ties, I will break them by pulling numbers out of a cup.

# Between the morning of Friday, March 24, and Sunday, March 26, users will have a window in which to give one vote to from one to four of the eight remaining candidates. Again, any ties will be decided as described above.

# Between the morning of Sunday, March 26, and Tuesday, March 28, users will have a window in which to give one vote to from one to two of the eight remaining candidates.

# Between the morning of Tuesday, March 28, and Thursday, March 30, users will have a window in which to give one vote to one of the two remaining contenders.
_
___

(It would probably be wise to remember that this exercise is merely a semi-formal experiment.)

Recall, the four finalists (as of Friday morning are:

Boxer, Calif.;
Dodd, Conn.;
Feingold, Wis.;
Kennedy, Mass.;
_
____

I invite any users to participate in this experiment by listing one or two of these finalists in comments. Please try it!

(I will now use this comment as the basis for a new diary entry for the benefit of those of you who missed reading the opening entry at Try Your Hand! - An Approval Voting Experiment.)

by blues 2006-03-24 05:49AM | 0 recs
Re: Try Your Hand! - An Approval Voting Experiment

Leahy, VT
Boxer, CA
Jeffords, VT

I'm a little confused about the premise.  You can make a poll on politicalswitchboard.com and link to it here.

Polls can be up to 20 entries long.

Just go to the forums and to the polling section.

Or ask Ace for help. :)

by goplies 2006-03-24 09:23AM | 0 recs

Diaries

Advertise Blogads