This is an experiment. I did try to do this once before, but I made a few mistakes, and folks around here apparently did not see the point I was trying to make. However, I believe it to be an extremely important point indeed. I am trying to develop a new method to evaluate where you readers stand regarding a certain set of Democratic candidates. So this will be a very limited "election" of sorts. Here's the method:

In its first phase, I will use the approval voting method to determine which candidates you find most acceptable. I will ask you to give just one vote to as many Democratic candidates as you find "relatively acceptable." (This means you should give one vote to each candidate you consider "the cream of the crop." (But they don't have to even be candidates, just Democrats.) For example, you could give one vote to one candidate that you like, or you could give one vote to 10 that you like.) To avoid ridiculously long lists, you must choose not more In 10 candidates.

In order to avoid a variety of difficulties and misgivings, the current 3 most prominent contenders are excluded; so you cannot vote for Hillary, Edwards, or Obama. However, you can give a vote to any other Democrat, whether they are actual current candidates or not.

In a day or two, or when I have 10 or more responses, I will count them up, and announce the two who have won the most votes. In case of a tie, I will wait a little longer for the tie to be broken, or as a last resort, do a coin-toss.

Then I will conduct an "election" between the two who had garnered the most votes in the previous approval voting "election." With this method, since there will be only two contenders to vote for, a third, or fourth (etc.) "spoiler" candidate could not be present to spoil the voting.