My Presidential Election Scoring System

Your guide for how and why not to vote

Preamble: I spend a lot of time and spill a lot of electronic ink chastising voting and voters. So why am I basically creating a detailed look at who you should vote for in this presidential election? Well, I guess I actually care, and reading between the lines of what I say about voting should make you realize that I do want voting. I just want good, thoughtful, well-reasoned voting. So if you want to be an ethical voter, you need to be well informed. This is my attempt to get you well informed.

I.

Almost everything that most people find important informing their decision about who to vote for is practically worthless. It is usually sideline issues that are emotionally salient for the would-be voter, but where a president has very little influence. Other times it is a fringe, trivial detail that the voter is placing undo importance upon. For example, you should vote for a president's tax policy based on how good it will be for the entire country moving forward, not for how it affects your personal tax rate.

This election has a bit of a special backdrop. Whether you like it or not, we have a strong reason to believe that democracy is metaphorically on the ballot. We should at least consider that it is since one of the candidates, Mr. Trump, has literally acted while in the office in a way that is a direct threat and an affront to the American way. I'll let Michael Huemer explain. If he is right about the implications and I think he really might be (he is certainly correct on the facts), what follows in this post is itself trivia. Nevertheless, I feel driven to give you this analysis.

II.

The procedure is to score each candidate on the issues I do think are important for a successful presidency. They begin with The Big Six (Taxation, Immigration, Education, Housing Development, Drug Freedom, and War) and then also include Free Trade, Entitlement Reform, Regulation, Judicial Appointments, and finally Character for eleven issues in total.

This is not an exhaustive evaluation covering absolutely everything, but I feel it covers directly or indirectly >95% of the relevant issues. Keep in mind that just as some of these share overlap there is overlap to other issues not specifically addressed.

The scoring methodology is as follows:

• Position on each issue (regardless of potential to affect change) - Scale is -5 to +5.

• Likelihood of bringing about meaningful change (regardless of position) - Scale is +1 to +5 where 5 is most likely.

• The total score is the sum of position times change for each issue.

  • So a perfect score on a particular issue is +25.

  • A perfect score across all eleven issues is +275 with a worst possible of -275.

This scoring system is not the only criterion that could be used, but it is a useful criterion. It can serve as a starting point for organizing thoughts helping to decide between close candidates as well as to see the order and separation among them. One should always reserve the right to veto a given candidate for any presumptive cause making them unfit for office (e.g., criminality, untrustworthiness, unpredictable volatility, horrific views like socialism or racism, etc.). We know from the link above where Michael Huemer would come down on this.

III.

The analysis will follow this form.

Issue - The desired position in motto form

Discussion of candidates

Score for each: position * change = issue score

Taxation - Tax the use of resources not the creation of resources

This category is perhaps Trump’s strongest category relative to Harris. He has a good record and his rhetoric is better. For Harris we have to lean hard on the idea that she is saying one thing with the intention and likelihood of doing basically the opposite. Breaking it down:

Trump does get credit for what was on net meaningfully good change in his first term with the TCJA. Three net positives were (in order) reducing the corporate income tax rate to 21% meeting international averages, increasing the standard deduction which simplified individual tax compliance and reduced distortions/favoritism, and capping the SALT deduction at $10,000 which partially neutralized federal subsidization of state and local taxes.

However, Trump does not get credit in these areas: eliminating taxes on Social Security (speeds up insolvency—see entitlement reform below), tariffs (20%!—see free trade below), and tips. Specifically, Trump’s ridiculous tariff plan does not yield him any credit here. Even though tariffs are taxes on consumption, it would be a very distortionary and uneven one in application. What’s more, he doesn’t think of it that way as he thinks it is a tax on production (foreign production) therefore capital. He is wrong, of course. So he gets low points for both position and change. Given that the Biden Administration has been an active user and extender of tariffs, Harris is not let off the hook here either.

Nor do Harris or Trump get credit for proposing exempting tips from income tax. They have no intention of this being a move to a world where consumption rather than income is taxed. Additionally, it is distortive with unintended knock-on effects by encouraging more payments and income to be made in the form of tipping. This is nothing more than pandering. We cannot count on good policy deriving from such methods.

Harris leans heavily into the tax-the-rich, make-them-pay-their-fair-share nonsense. We have one of the most progressive tax regimes in the world. She would seemingly up the ante magnificently with a tax on unrealized gains (apparently since a wealth tax is off the table). Both ideas are unconstitutional and pragmatically absurdly bad.

Perhaps more plausibly, Harris confirmed her support for all of Biden’s proposed 2025 tax increases including raising the corporate income tax rate to 28%. While we need higher taxes especially on the middle class if we are to ever start paying for our enormous government, these proposals fail otherwise on the merits since they very much tax resource creation rather than use.

Taxation scores:

Trump: 2 * 4 = 8

Harris: -2 * 2 = -4

Immigration - Open Borders

Now we turn to the issue that Trump is weakest on relative to Harris from a moral point of view but might at the same time be his best relative position from an electoral point of view. I will be setting aside the fact that most voters allow themselves to be persuaded/convinced/confused that a very chaotic scene at the national border (albeit long running) is the same thing as immigration. I also set aside people’s general ignorance on the economic importance of immigration as well as the moral case for immigration (see Michael Huemer and Bryan Caplan if you need help on this).

To be sure Harris is no saint when it comes to immigration. The most I can say is that she is likely to be a reluctantly-acting aide rather than hinderance on the issue. As Border Czar she was pathetically bad. But as I already said, Border Czar is not Immigration Czar. Certainly the Biden Administration’s mixed messaging was harmful to a great degree exacerbating the problem. It encouraged the willingness of immigrants to try to make a better life for themselves without any semblance of a plan to accommodate them. However, the much bigger reason there has been a surge is the relative attractiveness of the U.S. labor market during the Biden years as opposed to the Trump years. And despite what Trump says, Biden has been Trump II largely continuing Trump‘s immigration policies including being MORE restrictive relative to the surge of immigrants seeking entry.¹

But Trump is monstrously awful on this issue. His rhetoric is incendiary, hateful, and dishonest. Just as with Harris’ worse rhetoric on taxes, we can only take solace in the hope that his words will not bring matching actions. There is some precedent for this as he promised mass deportations in his first presidential run but stopped short of attempting despite his other bad policies. Grasping for a positive, at least Trump has expressed some acknowledgment of the need and importance of high skilled immigrant labor.

The role our absentee Congress would have to play to bring about any meaningful immigration reform mitigates against the change factor being as high as it could be.

Immigration Scores:

Trump: -4 * 4 = -16

Harris: 1 * 4 = 4

Education - Fund students not systems

This is not a category where the president can play a very decisive role since rightfully this is largely a state and local issue. However, the federal role has grown over the decades as the Department of Education exerts a growing influence. Additionally both candidates wish to use the bully pulpit as a means of directing change from on high.

Harris is weak here. She would thwart private, family choices and grant great authority to government public schools. I feel that her ideological position is negligible on this subject. Much more critical is how she and her party are beholden to the vested interests that stand between where we are and where we should be. Pile on here that Harris must be a supporter² of Biden‘s numerous attempts at student loan forgiveness despite the combination of unconstitutionality, fiscal imprudence, and general unfairness among taxpayers.

Trump is much better. Yet similarly to Harris, I think his ideological stance is also negligible. Rather he sees common enemies that he would like to disrupt. Therefore, I do think he would be constructive while still being a weak ally. One of the most concerning aspects is his willingness to engage in the culture war here and elsewhere. As Brian Riedl says:

One of the funniest parts of the GOP platform is the section that calls for massive new regulations of local schools... …and then ends with a call to "Return Education to the States" by eliminating the very Dept of Education that would be running those regulations.

Still, his performance in his first term was net positive rolling back the mission creep of the federal government in education particularly higher ed. Among her many accolades, Betsy DeVos brought sanity to the witch-hunts in campus investigations; good assuming you support due process. And his support for school choice and private options has been consistent. The limiting factor for both candidates is simply the limited role the federal government plays in education—a feature not a bug.

Education Scores:

Trump: 4 * 2 = 8

Harris: -5 * 2 = -10

Housing Development - Build, Baby, Build!

Here is another generally non-federal issue that has become a presidential campaign issue. This speaks to the dire circumstances of our housing crisis that it would garner such attention. More often than not that is bad attention, but there is some hope along with the expected pitfalls.

This is also an issue that brings awkward stances for both candidates indicative of the strange bedfellows and mixed influences exerting force on each. For Harris we have a combination of rhetoric very supportive of building more housing (albeit with the typical subsidize demand emphasis) along with rhetoric right out of Housing Failure 101—rent control. Ah, the well-known best way to destroy a city short of bombing it takes center stage.

For Trump we have the combo opening up federal lands and reducing regulations that serve to restrict home production (both good) along with a new-found love of zoning and mass deportation (both terrible). It shouldn’t be any surprise that the Trump constituency is very NIMBY, in which both of those latter stances reside in. Lest you forget, zoning’s progressive origin story is one centered in pure racism; so the association with deportation is not out of step at all.

As with all of the issues examined in this post, we are generally measuring degrees of losing. On housing the hopefulness is that the stakes are so high and the fruit so low there is ample room for improvement emerging through the jumble. Still, the downside risks with either candidate are devastating. Rent control is death by slow strangulation. I don’t even want to contemplate what mass deportation would entail. I am discounting the doom scenarios significantly with the hope that those ideas are so bad if not detestable that they won’t see the light of day.

Housing Scores:

Trump: -2 * 3 = -6

Harris: 1 * 3 = 3

Drug Freedom - Free to Choose

There is no more emblematic issue of FOOL (Fear Of Other’s Liberty) and FOOM (Fear Of Other’s Mistakes) than our continued, stubborn, double-down failure in drug prohibition. The idea of TALA (Treat Adults Like Adults) is beyond the pale for a vocal but shrinking part of our population. So it is no surprise that we haven’t seen nor should we expect much progress on this issue.

Compounding it is how it can be a bigger version of the confusion between symptom and disease as in the case of recent border chaos and immigration. You see it in the rollback of Oregon’s decriminalization reforms despite the obvious evidence that decriminalization was not the cause of problems. It is therefore not surprising at all that the Democrats have avoided any meaningful reform on this topic. In fact previously I reasoned that it would take a Republican to get reform in this area. But can we expect this from Trump?

Likely the answer is no, but who would have thought meaningful criminal justice reform would occur under Trump in his first term. Yet it did! Still, I won’t hold my breath. And despite the mentioned political headwinds, the Biden Administration could have and should have done a lot more at least in regards to marijuana.

The most optimistic take is that vested interests like banks will want what is needed at the federal level to allow them to bank marijuana businesses. Add to this some encouragement from the justice system. It feels the difficulty brought on by the inconsistencies in marijuana legality including strain on the system. Perhaps a descheduling of marijuana from level I is in the cards—taking it down to simply cocaine’s status.³

Drug Freedom Scores:

Trump: 1 * 3 = 3

Harris: 2 * 2 = 4

War - Trade Not Arms

Unlike in past presidential elections, today we face a world with conflicts that actually threaten the United States. Make no mistake, all human life is precious, and all war is awful—to be avoided at great cost. The wars of the past two decades, though, were wars of choice that did not risk the homeland (other than soldiers’ lives and the nation’s treasure).

Now we are in a proxy war with Russia and far from a bystander in an escalating war in the Middle East. For the past 25 years we could play fast and loose since it was just various Arab and Muslim factions doing battle. With Israel at the center of the conflict, it is an entirely different affair.

Richard Hanania among others has pointed out how despite the hopeful belief that Trump is anti-war, he is much more of a hawk in practice than his supporters wish him to be. His rhetoric on exiting Afghanistan was just basically rhetoric—as with so many things with Trump. Where he did take action was to relax the rules of engagement resulting in a doubling to tripling of civilian airstrike deaths in Iraq, Syria, and Afghanistan.

He alludes to one thing and does quite another as in his escalation in Yemen along with the hiring John Bolton and Mike Pompeo. Don’t confuse Trump’s own confusion as some kind of crazy-like-a-fox strategy, intricate diplomacy, or just a pacifist disposition. It is just confusion all the way down coupled with a Jersey ego that likes a fight.

Harris shows her own weakness of confusion in how she addresses foreign policy questions. The necessary yet poorly executed withdrawal from Afghanistan might be overplayed, but the recent fumbles in Ukraine and Israel don’t inspire confidence her team has learned from any mistakes. Trump claiming he would end these conflicts on day one is no more hyperbolic and vacuous than is Harris saying how “we must stand with Ukraine” and “what happened on October 7th is tragic” . . . and just leaving it at that.

War Scores:

Trump: -1 * 5 = -5

Harris: -1 * 5 = -5

Free Trade - Let goods not soldiers cross borders

There are some obvious as well as some less than obvious points to be made here. Right off the bat it is clear that Trump is not great or free trade. He wants to impose 10% or 20% tariffs across the board. This is a remarkable tax increase on American consumers. Don’t overlook the fact that much of what we import is intermediate goods used by American firms in American production. He has a childlike understanding of the economics of free trade.

Some of what he advocates, including the actions he took in his first administration are more bark than bite, however. He was very negative on NAFTA. But all that he ultimately did was re-draft it with a minor changes. He did pull us out of the TPP unfortunately. This ironically introduced an opportunity for China to take not just a role but a lead role in that agreement. So sometimes his actions are for show, but even then they can have meaningful, negative implications.

There’s a little reason to believe Harris would be much better. The only reason the Blue Tribe is not embracing tariffs is because Trump has made it such a center point of his platform. I just expect her to be less of the same. To wit, Biden largely continued and in some cases extended Trump’s tariffs.

Most indirectly Harris would be much worse in areas like reform and modernization of American ports. I would expect Trump to be much less beholden to the longshoreman’s union. I would also guess that Trump has a narrow advantage in terms of listening to CEOs as they lobby for policies that actually promote free trade. Both would easily be captured by CEOs lobbying for policies that simply promote the CEOs’ self interests even when it is adverse to the country overall. So neither is going to score well on this category.

Free Trade Scores:

Trump: -3 * 3 = -9

Harris: -2 * 3 = -6

Entitlement Reform - The preservation of a safety net requires sustainability

Social Security and Medicare are going bankrupt. They require substantial changes in order to simply avoid this ever-closer fate (mid 2030s at this point). The entirety of our federal government’s unfunded liabilities reside in these two beasts. Beyond this, reform to them potentially addresses the current national debt burden going forward—reduce them enough, and we can pay off the debt straightforwardly.

Neither candidate nor their parties nor their political tribes wants to hear anything about this. They have their own versions of how this isn’t true and/or can be painlessly solved. They are wrong. We cannot grow ourselves out of this. We cannot tax the rich enough to escape this.

The only thing I can think to differentiate the candidates on this is how Trump via his proposal to no longer tax Social Security benefits will greatly accelerate the coming reckoning. He is also worse from a fiscal standpoint because he counters Harris’ tax & spend framework with tax-cut & spend.

Entitlement Reform Scores:

Trump: -3 * 3 = -9

Harris: -2 * 3 = -6

Regulation - Less Is More

The burdens of federal regulation weigh heavily across many of the items in this post. Moreover, these burdens are a phantom menace that pervades life in unanticipated and unintended ways. Almost always these consequences are bad—there are very few positive externalities that flow from regulation.

Trump was either very sympathetic to this from his own disposition or simply easily persuaded by those opposed to unbridled growth of government control. Either way, this was an area of true success during his first term—COVID mismanagement aside. Note that Harris supporters will misinterpret that last point.

Trump’s enactment of the long-desired 2-for-1 rule was a breath of fresh air. Unfortunately, his fairly strong position on economic regulations does not carry over into the realm of social regulation. Here he is every bit the paternalistic authoritarian that Harris is economically.

Speaking of authoritarianism, Harris would both control what we do in the workplace and marketplace as well as in our thoughts and speech. She may not want into our bedrooms to exert control, but she doesn’t want us saying the “wrong” thing about it or what someone else is doing. Trump has his freedom of speech limitations, but Harris is much and scarily worse.

One bright spot with Harris is an indication that she would be more receptive to permitting reform as compared to Biden. This is the incredible morass of obstacles like NEPA that grant de facto if not de jure veto power to basically anyone who doesn’t want to see a project see the light of day from NIMBYs to environmental zealots, from de-growthers to literal business competitors. But Harris isn’t running against Biden. She is facing Trump who is likely much better on this issue.

Regulation Scores:

Trump: 2 * 4 = 8

Harris: -3 * 3 = -9

Judicial Appointments - There are only two kinds of judges: good and bad.

For those who understand the reference, I could have subtitled this one “But Gorsuch . . .” Trump has a clear lead in this category, or at least we might assume so based on his first term. Despite his own character and judgement flaws, he largely deferred this particular decision making to more reasonable experts. The result was a very good (and deep) track record of judicial appointments extending well past SCOTUS.⁴

The biggest concern with Trump is parallel with the concern about how he will staff his administration. Who would work for this guy, and who would he want working for him? Luckily, half of this concern with executive branch appointments is not shared when it comes to the judiciary. Once appointed, they are independent. However, the desire for loyalty including with regard to January 6th-type questions might dilute the pool from which he would consider drawing. Because of this which relates to the next category of character, I am downgrading Trump’s position score below from 4 to 3.

Harris will have less discretion than will Trump in making judicial selections. She will be much more beholden to factions of the Democratic Party. She will also be dealing from the Democratic deck—a group that leaves a lot to be desired. Lest you think I’m being too harsh, I will state for the record that Ketanji Brown Jackson, Biden’s only appointment to the highest bench, has been refreshingly good at times and tends to outshine either of Obama’s choices. This is by some measure when it comes to Sonia Sotomayor. So perhaps the gap isn’t so big between Trump and Harris. I think it is, and here is part of my reasoning:

The most prominent argument Team Blue makes against Team Red’s judicial appointments centers on legal philosophy and influences. These are honest disagreements, but they are not reasons to panic in the streets. Yet for decades ever since Bork, that has been the modus operandi—hyperbolic exasperation and desperate tactics with the chief dispute simply being where reasonable minds can disagree.

The most prominent argument Team Red makes against Team Blue’s judicial appointments centers on qualification and reasoning. These are more substantial complaints where, if true, reasonable minds cannot disagree. I am not saying Team Red is always correct or always acts in good faith. I am claiming that the persistence in these two approaches gives insight into the true differences between the quality of each team’s respective choices and methodologies.

Judicial Appointment Scores:

Trump: 3 * 5 = 15

Harris: -1 * 5 = -5

Character - Who you are is what you will be.

Scott Sumner makes the point that character might be all that is worth considering given how dishonest and misleading politicians are.

As I get older, I increasingly discount the promises made by politicians. Instead, I focus on character. Which candidate has the most integrity? In the long run, I suspect that character is what matters most.

The character of both Harris and Trump are dubious, but Trump is truly in a class(lessness) of his own here. As it relates back to Huemer’s point at the start, this could perhaps be all one needs to consider to rule out Trump.

Character is really a catchall category for me. It is a way of capturing sometimes in individual instances and others in general vibes what a candidate is truly about at their core. As an example both Harris and Trump have proposed various forms of price controls. Harris is worse on this of course having danced with the idea of price gouging laws to extend to food and grocery stores. What is the one area where communism/socialism failed so miserably that even the communists in power allowed for capitalist, free market solutions? The answer is food production. Are we so far removed from Yeltsin‘s visit to the supermarket that we really think that is the way to go? Trump has suggested that we should institute maximum interest rates for consumers at 10%. The rate isn’t as bad as the mere suggestion, but it adds insult to injury that he would consider such a low percentage point limit. This is all absolute ignorance on stilts.

I won’t attempt to expound upon all the myriad of ways Trump is a despicable character. You either realize/admit it or you suffer extreme cognitive dissonance. No, he is not Hitler II, and the fact that we have to state that says a lot about criticism he has rightfully earned and a flawed Democrat political playbook that was doomed from the start.

Harris’ time as a prosecutor is the key look into who she is—an indifferent, bad cop. Her track record since shows how little she cares about justice, freedom, and honesty. At least caring a little is still caring, though.

In aggregate my determination of this category is to use a metaphorical hypothetical: If presented with a decision where doing the wrong thing would bring personal gain with little personal risk and doing the right thing would bring personal risk with little personal gain, what would the candidate most likely do and how big would the differences between the gain and the risk have to be for them to do the right thing?

Through answering that question, we derive the position rating for character. In other words, the implications for positive change in all other issues as well as the basic integrity to do the right thing yields the magnitude (number) and direction (positive or negative sign).

The change rating is simply how much character matters. For an office this important and this powerful, it has to be a 5.

Character Scores:

Trump: -3 * 5 = -20⁵

Harris: 1 * 5 = 5

Total Scores:

Trump: -23

Harris: -29

IV.

The conclusion I draw from this is not that one candidate has edged out the other. It is not the case that we are looking at an opportunity to choose between one or another version of limited success. The conclusion is these two candidates and the parties they represent are absolutely awful. They are so bad on an absolute basis that the relative difference between them is not meaningful. In fact, the differences are well within margins of error. There is simply too much uncertainty to confidently think in either case that either one of them will deliver positive and lasting results that overcome the risk inherent within them.

Voting for either one is both an irrational act when judged by even the most hopeful results and unethical act since each one represents a step away from even a maintenance of the American ideal, much less advancement of it. The lesser of two evils is still evil. I generally mean that metaphorically; however, there is a degree to which I am being literal.

The inescapable mathematical certainty that your vote will not, cannot, determine the outcome of the election means that the only thing you're doing in casting your vote is exercising your support for the candidate—you're endorsement of the candidate. Your vote for them is your pledge to them, the signal of your support of them, and the recognition that they are your choice. Given who they are and what they support, there is no honor in casting your vote for either one.

PS, I cast my vote via absentee ballot for Chase Oliver, the Libertarian candidate. When you step into the voting booth, you can and should do so too. Don’t worry. No one will know. It will be our little secret.

PPS, Who do I think will win? As of this writing, I guess Trump. He is ahead in the prediction markets having overcome a deficit to build a solid lead (60/40). That seems like a good, unbiased estimate. While either candidate can still win, he has the edge with growing momentum.

PPPS, It surprised and disappointed me some that Trump emerged with the higher score in this process. Again, for me that doesn’t matter as I think he has disqualified himself outright and these scores are so bad neither candidate deserves a second look.

1. While, I’ve tried to avoid including endless links to support my reasoning, I feel compelled to at least offer this one on this surprising set of facts. Feel free to peruse all of Cato’s work for more substantiation.

2. She’s been asked numerous times if there is anything she would do different than the Biden Administration, and every time she either declines to answer or says no.

3. To be sure, this is but a small yet important part of a bigger whole. ALL illicit drugs should be legalized fully.

4. Again I feel compelled to offer some evidence since I can sense the disdain-fueled disbelief at this claim.

5. Only a person will this low of character and a wrong position on basically all issues would score a -4. It would then take an absolute evil dictator could score lower.