So our latest poll got a bit more than 200 votes; since there were fewer choices here (a bit like the earlier Kant poll), I will just note the "top ten":
|1. H.L.A. Hart (Condorcet winner: wins contests with all other choices)|
|2. Joseph Raz loses to H.L.A. Hart by 139–35|
|3. Ronald Dworkin loses to H.L.A. Hart by 141–31, loses to Joseph Raz by 91–85|
|4. John Finnis loses to H.L.A. Hart by 158–17, loses to Ronald Dworkin by 125–47|
|5. Joel Feinberg loses to H.L.A. Hart by 168–3, loses to John Finnis by 79–75|
|6. Jeremy Waldron loses to H.L.A. Hart by 169–11, loses to Joel Feinberg by 84–63|
|7. Lon Fuller loses to H.L.A. Hart by 167–6, loses to Jeremy Waldron by 80–68|
|8. Jules Coleman loses to H.L.A. Hart by 167–4, loses to Lon Fuller by 85–42|
|9. Tony Honore loses to H.L.A. Hart by 172–2, loses to Jules Coleman by 69–54|
|10. R.A. Duff loses to H.L.A. Hart by 167–1, loses to Tony Honore by 62–47|
Just outside the top ten were Neil MacCormick, Gerald Postema, Frederick Schauer, and Michael Moore. The top ten living philosophers of law were Raz, Finnis, Waldron, Coleman, Honore, Duff, Postema, Schauer, Moore, and David Lyons. Recall that, as in prior polls, only living philosophers of law over 60 were included in the poll.
As in earlier polls, and putting ordinal ranking (partly) to one side, the results, including those just on the cusp of the top ten, seem sensible (though Stephen Perry, for his work in tort theory and general jurisprudence, should pretty clearly have been in the top ten as well), though I was a bit astonished by Lon Fuller's showing: Yes, "The Case of the Speluncean Explorers" is a brilliant piece of legal writing, but his purported contributions to jurisprudence are feeble and confused. As to the ordinal ranking, it is nice to see that Hart came out so firmly on top, and also good to see that Raz came out ahead of Dworkin.
Thoughts from readers?