We've finally pulled together the results of our presidential preference survey, range-voting style.
To recap the method behind the madness: Rather than asking you to simply pick one favorite (plurality), or rank them in order (IRV), we asked you to simply rate each candidate from 1 to 10.
This system, amongst election reform folks known as "range voting", is supposed to give voters greater opportunity to communicate their opinion most accurately. Hate someone? Give 'em a 1. Love someone? Give 'em a 10. Have three second-choices? Give 'em all a seven. Don't know anything about someone? Express "no opinion", which doesn't help or hurt.
Of course, we saw the whole range of voting behavior in our little survey. Some die-hard supporters gave their candidate a 10, and everybody else a 1. Some folks gave lots of candidates 8+ ratings, and not many low scores. Lots of folks expressed "no opinion" about Mike Gravel - but exactly zero respondents said "no opinion" about Hillary Clinton. And, of course, the supporters of Wesley Clark showed up in droves to give their guy a 10. (This is common in the blogosphere.)
OK, without further ado... We present the candidates, in order of finish, with cute little barcharts that indicate the number of each rating for each of them - along with the averages and number of "no opinion" votes.
[Update: We neglected to mention some basic stats. We had 504 participants (after eliminating a few multiple-voting miscreants.) On average, people rated 8.7 of the candidates. 112 people had two or more 10-pointers. 287 people had two or more 9+ pointers. Only 25 people had four or more 1-pointers.]
On the jump, the full table of responses...
April 28, 2007
Posted in buzz poll.
More Recent Posts
connect with blueoregon