My Political Weighted Points

Sometimes when we make decisions we think about possible outcomes but we don't think about how likely those outcomes actually are.

I am going to write out the potential differentiating costs and differentiating benefits of each candidate, multiplied by how likely that cost or benefit is to occur/have a real effect. The cost and benefit numbers represent how big of a deal I think those attributes are, assuming that they happen. By "differentiating", I mean things that are unique to each candidate. (For example, I won't talk about the benefits of them being U.S. citizens, since all of them are. Also, rather than giving negative points to Clinton and Johnson for being pro-choice, I give Trump positive points for being pro-life.)

I realize that the cost and benefit numbers and the probabilities are not founded in data or anything besides my own impulse, so just try to use what I'm doing as one option for how to think about analyze more specifics of your own opinions.

key: bold=benefit, red=cost, blue=results

Donald Trump: directness (50*.8) + said people who are happy are family people (100*.2) + pro-life (300*.4)  + Mexican wall (-125*.5) + his concerns about unfair trade (-50*.6) + not aiming to reduce number of prisoners (-15*.9) + wants to keep out Muslims (-125*.2)
positives/benefits: 180
negatives/costs: -131
total: 49

Hillary Clinton: foreign affairs knowledge (100*.9) + religious (150*.6) + predictable (90*.8) + wants to help people (60*.85) + pro-gmo (60*.85) + email issue (-10*.1) + doesn't want to reduce regulation on businesses (-100*.9) + would appoint liberal judges (-100*.8)
positives/benefits: 303
negatives/costs:  -171
total:  132

Gary Johnson: wants to reduce the role of the Federal Government in education (125*.95) + will veto unbalanced budgets (150*.8) + talks about the constitution (150*.9) + won't win (-100*.99)
positives/benefits: 373.75
negatives/costs: -99
total: 274.75

You'll see that Gary Johnson only had one negative/cost item listed. It isn't that I think Gary Johnson is perfect besides not winning, it is just that his flaws that I see happen to be shared with another candidate. Thus, this is his only differentiating cost.

And now for my huge list of disclaimers. I have done this post as a fun way to take into account everything I think about them. I feel a little uncomfortable giving Hillary Clinton points for religiosity, because I don't think there should be a systematic religious test for government officials. Nonetheless, my number one criteria for a presidential candidate is that he or she be just, honest, and good (Doctrine and Covenants 98:10). While religious people do not always meet those requirements, religion helps, and it especially helps with not being antagonistic against religion.

I'm also hesitant to take points from Johnson for not winning, because sometimes it is good to support a less heard voice. But I suppose that votes for him are less well publicized and hence will make a smaller impact.

I understand that I am mixing a quantitative approach with my qualitative feelings, which doesn't lead to accuracy. It might be better to use dollar estimates of the efficiency gains and losses of each candidate, but that would require more data and brains than I have. And perhaps a nice drawing would better depict their qualitative characteristics, but I'm not that artistic. But hopefully you can still be inspired to think hard about the candidates by seeing these topics next to fairly arbitrary numbers ; )

If any cost or benefit mentioned here sparks your interest or disagreement, please comment so that I can research it more and do another post on that topic!