In its place, I propose as a starting point a more Bayesian probability approach to answer the narrow question “who will be least bad.” Considering just the two eventual nominees, roughly estimate the probability that candidate A will produce worse outcomes than candidate B on the three issues with (in your view) the biggest moral impact and vote the least-bad option accordingly. I would throw in the observation that most prediction markets anticipate at least a very republican house and given a proven tactic of obstructionism on the right, the probability that a democratic president accomplishing any of the agenda especially the more radical parts is lower than a republican president accomplishing his agenda – the implication is that if you prefer NO new laws to either agenda then a democratic vote is implied. I would propose “three biggest issues” as impact of supreme court nominees, probability of war, probability of worse economic governance.

Still fuzzy, but maybe less fuzzy?

its 6am and I’ve been up all night so apologies if this is unhelpful or replacing the heuristic wasn’t what you had in mind!

]]>