Note: For a number of reasons, I do not vote in these elections. However, it is still important to me to understand how coercive power will be wielded against people, and how we must shape alternatives. Thus, this topic matter is still of interest to me.

Here are my top results for the ISideWith PotUS poll:
I will edit this page as questions are updated and my results change.

These are probably lower top-picks than most people would have, but higher than I would have expected. This year, I used the “importance" scale a bit more, giving the most weight to “not killing people", “open borders", and “not spending money on other countries" questions, strong weight to “economic freedom" and “fixing the criminal justice system" questions, and lesser weight to things that either don’t matter to me, or are not important to change until more important things are addressed (e.g. the classic “don’t focus on taking away ‘free’ crutches while the government is still breaking legs").

New Addition:
States & Territories where my beliefs have the most support? Oregon, California, Virginia, Washington D.C, Vermont, Massachusetts, Maine, Puerto Rico. Or, if you go by Congressional District, the mainland looks like this:

There were other charts that I found interesting, such as:

and:

and:
and the “themes" chart. (click through, because it is too large)

The “themes" area is where interpretation starts to get dicey. For example, I only got 72 (instead of full 100) on the Pacifism vs. Militarism scale. But, I suspect this is due to some misconceptions about certain answers. For example, I am seen as “weak" on gun control, but this ignores the fact that gun control does not get rid of gun violence, but (at least in the USA) must be enforced via guns and further concentrates violent power amongst people who have routinely abused it.

Similarly, in “Environmentalism vs Anthropocentrism", the questions & answers do not really allow for more innovative non-centralized environmental care options, or pollution-liability options, so I am shown as much less environmentalist than I am (and I argue those are a false dichotomy).

The other challenging item about this approach to topics is it doesn’t (and perhaps can’t) separate platform from reality. For example, Clinton sounds better at Foreign Policy & Militarism than history and financial backing would indicate will be reality. I am sure this is true for many other candidates as well. Likewise, this quiz does not account for how much these various questions are actually in the purview of the president. (I have somewhat “fixed" that by putting more emphasis on the things actually-related to the executive branch.)

What do you think?