So who should get a Nobel Prize in philosophy?

With over 565 responses to our earlier poll (limited, recall, to living philosophers over age 60), we now know whom readers think are the ten most deserving candidates: 

1. Saul Kripke  (Condorcet winner: wins contests with all other choices)

2. Noam Chomsky  loses to Saul Kripke by 245–142

3. Derek Parfit  loses to Saul Kripke by 260–113, loses to Noam Chomsky by 197–164

4. Thomas Nagel  loses to Saul Kripke by 278–98, loses to Derek Parfit by 173–148

5. Martha Nussbaum  loses to Saul Kripke by 272–110, loses to Thomas Nagel by 176–130

6. Jurgen Habermas  loses to Saul Kripke by 273–108, loses to Martha Nussbaum by 154–141

7. Daniel Dennett  loses to Saul Kripke by 282–98, loses to Jurgen Habermas by 150–145

8. Jerry Fodor  loses to Saul Kripke by 292–64, loses to Daniel Dennett by 148–139

9. John Searle  loses to Saul Kripke by 294–63, loses to Jerry Fodor by 142–124

10. Amartya Sen  loses to Saul Kripke by 288–81, loses to John Searle by 148–121

Timothy Williamson and John McDowell were runners-up for the top ten.  Allowing for the Anglophone bias of the readership here, these results aren't surprising and certainly seem defensible.  I was, I confess, surprised how poorly Charles Taylor fared, even allowing for the Anglophone bias.