2016 Ranked Voting Poll 2.0

[LarryGri]

Kasich
Bush
Sanders
Rubio
Fiorina
Carson
Christie
Trump
Clinton
Cruz

I am in Massachusetts listening and watching the campaigning in NH. They are so full of themselves it is a little nauseating. Lots of negative ads on Kasich. I cannot figure out why. He is so low on the polls. I guess they want him out of the race before the Ohio primary. God save the USA.

 

[Thor]

Maybe he rates so low in the polls as a republican is because he said he should be running as a democrat. Jim Webb is more of a R than Kasich. Of course the rest of your ranking says enough about that.

 

[jamil]

I'm not arguing for first past the post. But a hybrid system, where you have to get a minimum of 5% of the first place votes to be considered. Using our ingoverse, you would have to have received at least 1.3 first place votes to be counted (at 5%). This way we still used the Ranked voting system, but we add in you have to have at least SOME people want to vote for you. In the ingoverse, we would end up with Teddy as President, followed by Rubio, then Trump. The others would not be eligible as they didn't get the necessary 1.3 votes to be counted. We have the same system, but it prevents a guy that no one (or in this minimum 5% case, not many) wants as their number 1.

I'm trying to understand why that is so important. I think it's not. They scored high exactly because of popularity, not despite unpopularity, like Trump.

By the numbers, most of INGO doesn't like trump. Ranked voting is a sort of tally of head to head competition. Per vote, the first place candidate beat 9 other candidates. 2nd place beat 8, and so on. So the score is roughly the number of how many times they beat other candidates head to head. That's not quite true in this tally because top rank gets 10, next 9, 8, and so on. Last place gets 1 point. I only did it that way because there are 10 candidates and going from 10 to 1 seemed more intuitive than 9 to 0. Either way doesn't matter.

Anyway, Fiorina and Carson beat Trump head to head enough times that put them in front of him by a good bit. If they both beat Trump head to head, why does it matter that more people picked Trump as their #1? In other words, given the same electorate, if Trump ran against Fiorina or Carson individually, he should lose to both of them. Why should that not place them higher?

 

[jamil]

Kasich
Bush
Sanders
Rubio
Fiorina
Carson
Christie
Trump
Clinton
Cruz

I am in Massachusetts listening and watching the campaigning in NH. They are so full of themselves it is a little nauseating. Lots of negative ads on Kasich. I cannot figure out why. He is so low on the polls. I guess they want him out of the race before the Ohio primary. God save the USA.

Welcome to INGO

Good to see some electoral diversity in this thread. It'll be awhile before your numbers get tallied. I just did it a few hours ago.

I've tallied a bit more than couple of dozen votes so far. After a few I started seeing patterns. I have to say yours is a very unique ranking for INGO.

 

[two70]

Maybe he rates so low in the polls as a republican is because he said he should be running as a democrat. Jim Webb is more of a R than Kasich. Of course the rest of your ranking says enough about that.

As for why Kasich is doing so poorly, it is not so much that he said that he should be running as a democrat, it is more that everything else he says backs up the accuracy of that statement!

 

[historian]

As for why Kasich is doing so poorly, it is not so much that he said that he should be running as a democrat, it is more that everything else he says backs up the accuracy of that statement!

Yeah. Like shutting down most of the abortion clinics in Ohio and an "A" from the NRA. Such a liberal.

 

[JettaKnight]

Yeah. Like shutting down most of the abortion clinics in Ohio and an "A" from the NRA. Such a liberal.

And the push for small gov't and lower taxes... What's not to love?



Oh that's right, Kasich would be an effective president. And true conservatives want a president that doesn't get anything done, just one whines a lot about liberalism.


Got to love the new conservatism - lose battles and alienate peers.



I guess I'm missing "step 2" on the way to winning the war.

 

[seedubs1]

Don't forget the fiscal responsibility and pulling more than one .gov out of the hole and into the green.

Dang liberal

And the push for small gov't and lower taxes... What's not to love?



Oh that's right, Kasich would be an effective president. And true conservatives want a president that doesn't get anything done, but whines a lot about liberals.


Got to love the new conservatism - lose battles and alienate peers.



I guess I'm missing "step 2" on the way to winning the war.

 

[historian]

And the push for small gov't and lower taxes... What's not to love?

Oh that's right, Kasich would be an effective president. And true conservatives want a president that doesn't get anything done, just one whines a lot about liberalism.

Got to love the new conservatism - lose battles and alienate peers.

I guess I'm missing "step 2" on the way to winning the war.

Almost as bad as that guy from FL who shrunk government, loosened gun laws, and lowered taxes. Those dang leftists! With Marxists like that running around we'll never be a conservative utopia!

 

[BugI02]

"In 1994, Kasich was one of the Republican leaders to support a last-minute deal with President Bill Clinton to pass the Federal Assault Weapons Ban. After a series of meetings with Clinton's Chief of Staff, Leon Panetta, who was also a long-time friend of Kasich, the assault weapons ban was passed when 42 Republicans crossed party lines and voted with the Democrats to ban assault weapons. His support of the assault-weapons ban angered the National Rifle Association, which gave Kasich an "F" rating in 1994 as a result."

 

[JettaKnight]

And the rest of the story.

The past two years Kasich has advocated gun rights legislation, and according to a spokesman for the Buckeye Firearms Association, that could help him earn their support next year.

I'd rather have one that repents of their sins and shows some positive actions than one that has done nothing but talk.

 

[BugI02]

As one of his current 'owners', you can have him (just keep him in IN)

 

[BugI02]

Do you have any links to him repenting being a managing director for Lehman Bros. (until they went Tango Uniform) and using his influence to sell arguably worthless Mortgage Backed Securities to state pension funds

 

[two70]

And the push for small gov't and lower taxes... What's not to love?



Oh that's right, Kasich would be an effective president. And true conservatives want a president that doesn't get anything done, just one whines a lot about liberalism.


Got to love the new conservatism - lose battles and alienate peers.



I guess I'm missing "step 2" on the way to winning the war.

You seem to be very confused, the push for smaller government and lower taxes and Kasich don't go together. Kasich is pro Obama Care, pro amnesty, pro increasing taxes on the "rich". He's closer to Bernie-lite than a conservative. It is hard to believe he would be an effective president when he isn't even an effective candidate.

 

[jamil]

Kasich isn't a conservative in the traditional sense. He's only conservative in the sense that compared to where Democrats are, he seems conservative.

I don't like his Matthew 25 shtick at all, which he uses to try to shame evangelical conservatives. First, if he's doing it because of some religious belief, I ain't down with elected officials trying to encase their religious convictions in public policy. But second, far be it for me to interpret scripture, but I'm fairly certain Jesus wasn't advocating a government mandate. Charity is an individual behavior. When we delegate our conscience and obligation to the needy to government, it's no longer charity. It's just wiping our hands clean of the messy business of helping those less fortunate. So Kasich definitely needs his balls painfully crushed for that little bit of nonsense.

 

[BugI02]

"When we delegate our conscience and obligation to the needy to government, it's no longer charity." ...... it becomes entitlement

 

[Expat]

Kasich isn't a conservative in the traditional sense. He's only conservative in the sense that compared to where Democrats are, he seems conservative.

I don't like his Matthew 25 shtick at all, which he uses to try to shame evangelical conservatives. First, if he's doing it because of some religious belief, I ain't down with elected officials trying to encase their religious convictions in public policy. But second, far be it for me to interpret scripture, but I'm fairly certain Jesus wasn't advocating a government mandate. Charity is an individual behavior. When we delegate our conscience and obligation to the needy to government, it's no longer charity. It's just wiping our hands clean of the messy business of helping those less fortunate. So Kasich definitely needs his balls painfully crushed for that little bit of nonsense.

But that is the new method of the leftists. I must have read a thousand times during the last year or two how Christianity requires me to approve of any abomination that comes along because it is all about love and not judging others.

 

[ArcadiaGP]

Since Fiorina and Christie are out, time to allocate their INGO-legates to a better candidate

 

[BugI02]

And the rest of the story.




I'd rather have one that repents of their sins and shows some positive actions than one that has done nothing but talk.

The title of the article you link to is actually: "Kasich Feels Assault Weapons Ban He Once Supported Was ‘Not Effective’ "

If it had been 'more effective' would he still support it?

Kasich can be instrumental in passing the assault weapons ban in 1994-5 but his views 'evolve' and he repents and is forgiven. Trump can be quoted in 2000 in support of the assault weapons ban, but be in no way legislatively responsible for it or have dirty hands, and when his views 'evolve' and he repents it is all a sham to pull the wool over the eyes of the electorate. Do I detect a whiff of double standard?

 

[jamil]

The title of the article you link to is actually: "Kasich Feels Assault Weapons Ban He Once Supported Was ‘Not Effective’ "

If it had been 'more effective' would he still support it?

Kasich can be instrumental in passing the assault weapons ban in 1994-5 but his views 'evolve' and he repents and is forgiven. Trump can be quoted in 2000 in support of the assault weapons ban, but be in no way legislatively responsible for it or have dirty hands, and when his views 'evolve' and he repents it is all a sham to pull the wool over the eyes of the electorate. Do I detect a whiff of double standard?

It be stankin'.