IPR’s Second 2016 Libertarian Party Presidential Preference Poll Detailed Results

2016 candidates

Detailed statistics have been requested for IPR’s Second 2016 Libertarian Party Presidential Preference Poll, particularly, state-by-state results and ranked choice results for the National Convention delegates.  Both of these are provided below. Additionally, upon request, other statistics may be added.

Overall state-by-state results

Second Poll Map

Johnson – 40%
Petersen – 20%
Perry – 20%
Romney – 20%

American Samoa
McAfee – 100%

Johnson – 42.86%
McAfee – 28.57%
McCormick – 14.29%
Perry – 14.29%

Johnson – 100%

Johnson – 31.82%
Perry – 22.73%
McAfee – 18.18%
Petersen – 9.09%
Burke – 4.55%
Feldman – 4.55%
Milnes – 4.55%
Smith – 4.55%

Johnson – 60%
Perry – 20%
Petersen – 20%

Johnson – 100%

Sterling – 100%

Johnson – 45.45%
Perry – 27.28%
Feldman – 9.09%
McAfee- 9.09%
Petersen – 9.09%

Johnson – 33.33%
Perry – 33.33%
Petersen 33.33%

Johnson – 100%

Johnson – 42.86%
McAfee – 14.29%
McCormick – 14.29%
Perry – 14.29%
Shannon – 14.29%

Johnson – 50%
Feldman – 25%
Petersen – 25%

McAfee – 50%
Johnson – 16.67%
Perry – 16.67%
Sterling – 16.67%

Johnson – 60%
Petersen – 20%
NOTA – 20%

Johnson – 50%
McAfee – 50%

Johnson – 33.33%
McAfee – 33.33%
Petersen – 33.33%

Johnson – 42.86%
Perry – 28.57%
McAfee – 14.29%
Petersen – 14.29%

Johnson – 100%

Petersen – 50%
Johnson – 25%
McAfee – 25%

McAfee – 50%
Johnson – 16.67%
Feldman – 16.67%
NOTA – 16.67%

Johnson – 100%

Johnson – 100%

New Hampshire
Perry – 66.67%
Johnson – 33.33%

New Jersey
Johnson – 66.67%
Milnes – 33.33%

New Mexico
Johnson – 100%

New York
Perry – 50%
Johnson – 25%
McAfee – 25%

North Carolina
Johnson – 100%

Johnson – 62.5%
Perry – 25%
Feldman – 12.5%

South Carolina
Berry – 33.33%
Johnson – 33.33%
Petersen – 33.33%

McAfee – 100%

Johnson – 50%
Perry – 14.29%
Feldman – 7.14%
Petersen – 21.43%
McAfee – 7.14%

Johnson – 100%

Johnson – 50%
McCormick – 50%

Johnson – 61.54%
Petersen – 23.08%
Perry – 7.69%
Zeman – 7.69%

Johnson – 33.33%
McCormick – 33.33%
Petersen – 33.33%

Johnson – 75%
Petersen – 25%

West Virginia
Johnson – 66.67%
Petersen – 33.33%

National Convention Delegates Runoff Vote

First ballot (47 votes)
Johnson – 15 (31.91%)
Perry – 14 (29.79%)
McAfee – 9 (19.15%)
Petersen – 4 (8.51%)
Feldman – 3 (6.38%)
McCormick – 2 (4.26%) (Eliminated)

Second ballot (47 votes)
Johnson – 15 (31.91%)
Perry – 14 (29.79%)
McAfee – 10 (21.28%)
Petersen – 5 (10.64%)
Feldman 3 (6.38%) (Eliminated)

Third ballot (47 votes)
Perry – 16 (34.04%)
Johnson – 15 (31.91%)
McAfee – 10 (21.28%)
Petersen – 6 (12.77%) (Eliminated)

Fourth ballot (46 votes)
Johnson – 19 (41.30%)
Perry – 17 (36.96%)
McAfee – 10 (21.28%) (Eliminated)

Fifth ballot (46 votes)
Johnson – 25 (54.35%) (Winner)
Perry – 21 (45.65%)

32 thoughts on “IPR’s Second 2016 Libertarian Party Presidential Preference Poll Detailed Results

  1. sparkey

    Interesting. Petersen has talked up McAfee while criticizing Johnson, and yet his supporters transfer mainly to Johnson, with none going to McAfee. McAfee’s supporters split just a little more to Johnson than to Perry.

    If the national convention goes to multiple ballots, the way that the supporters of 3rd and 4th place candidates move is going to matter a lot. Although this is a small sample size, the way that Petersen supporters prefer Johnson second may be one of the most significant things we’ve learned from this.

  2. sparkey

    Saturn, could you provide one more statistic? I would like to know the breakdown of 2nd choices of delegates who support Perry.

  3. Shivany Lane

    I would really love it if someone, anyone, could provide a real poll that is scientific and representative of the party or the delegates. The delegates would probably be too tight of a sample group so maybe the party. Not everyone in the party reads IPR. I chanced upon it when I was researching Ballot Access and then, despite the rude welcome I received, I stuck around.

    PP, Monmouth and FOX news (now there is an unbiased source…NOT) have all just included the prior Presidential candidate. They don’t take into account that we have yet to choose our candidate. Jill Stein, I am assuming, will remain that party’s candidate so that is fine.

    Just looking for something more scientifically and relevant and accurate. For instance, with all our candidate, I didn’t bother with the ranking bit. I do know that Petersen’s Pro-Life stance is a deal breaker for me.

  4. Shivany Lane

    Oh, and just an aside, I am in no way disparaging this poll. It gives the readers of this forum a snapshot of where the readership stands on the candidates. That is an important thing for the community.

    Where my issue stands is some of the other polls on other sites that were clearly skewed.

    Data is a funny thing. You can twist and display it to mean anything you want it to. Also, interestingly, sometimes votes get lost and they blame the internet, or the database. Human intervention is more likely. I will place my trust in a machine I have programmed or a database I have designed any day.

  5. William Saturn Post author

    Among the 14 delegates who voted for Perry, four picked Feldman as their second choice, four left it blank, three selected McAfee, two chose NOTA, and one selected McCormick.

  6. sparkey

    Thanks. Zero Johnson second choices from Perry supporters isn’t so surprising, but I was expecting a slightly higher rate of McAfee second choices. 3/14 may not cut it for McAfee; he really needs Perry and Petersen supporters to move to him to secure the nomination, and this makes it look like he won’t get them.

  7. sparkey

    Maybe a more important question to answer, if we’re assuming that the convention will go multiple ballots and end with Johnson vs. McAfee: How many Perry delegates have Johnson ranked above McAfee, and how many have McAfee ranked above Johnson?

  8. Pastor Shawna Joy Sterling Libertarian Presidential Candidate

    William Saturn Post author stated on May 19, 2016 at 17:19 “DC is too small to show up on the map. I didn’t include American Samoa either.”

    William, first of all America Samoa does not have any electoral votes.

    Second, DC does get electoral votes and when you make a decision to not display the data correctly on the chart and/or map you deceive your readers into believing what you want them to believe versus what the poll data actually revealed.

    This is exactly why I turned down IPR when they twice requested interview answers from me. Because of the use of deception I have seen not once but now twice by IPR authors that have been biased towards me to try and say things that are not true and to now exclude my name from the list on the chart/map even though the data shows that I had a DC win.

    I won DC with 100% as the Data shows and my name should be on the chart with the map and the DC area even if it is a pinpoint of color, it should be colored for me, not for the candidates who did not win DC.

    As your map is now, you are deceiving your readers into thinking that another candidate besides myself won DC. It doesn’t matter how many votes I got to win DC, what matters is that I got the only vote from DC and none of the other candidates in your list got the vote.

    Your DC readers or reader, who took the time to take your IPR poll, chose Shawna Sterling over Johnson, McAfee, Perry, Petersen, Tie, and No Vote and you are trying to hide this from your readers as a whole in your chart/map.

    When you choose to not accurately display the data and give me credit for my win in DC, you deceptively present the win of DC as going to the only candidates listed, which did not include me, thus you purposely excluded my win of DC, so that your readers wouldn’t see my name in the list on the chart/map.

  9. William Saturn Post author

    The map shows the 48 contiguous U.S. states. Electoral votes have no bearing. Alaska and Hawaii have electoral votes but are excluded from the map since they are not part of the contiguous states. DC is not a state and so it is also excluded. It is too small to show on the map. I would have to make significant changes to the map to show DC, and I’m not willing to do that to show that a candidate received one vote. I’m not willing to do the same for American Samoa either. You can complain all you want but I’ve made my final decision. I will NOT change the map.

  10. Smart Alex

    Shawna’s a delightful one, isn’t she?

    Does she think she’s punishing us by not hanging out with us here at IPR?

  11. Pastor Shawna Joy Sterling Libertarian Presidential Candidate

    William, what matters is the fact that you are reporting on data collected from an IPR poll, the data determines what your chart looks like, not some map you pulled off of the internet, LOL.

    If you have one vote for DC and you don’t want to include it then you are deceptive in your presentation of the data IPR collected.

    You don’t want to change your map, of course you don’t, you don’t want anyone to see my name on the chart/map no matter that I won DC.

    You don’t even have to change the map, just put a note on the bottom that says Shawna Sterling won DC, but DC is too small to show on the map.

    But, you won’t do that because you don’t want to do anything to promote me, even, to such a degree that you left out my data on the chart, LOL.

    This is why when you contacted me to get permission to use my photo on Wikipedia, I told you I wasn’t interested, because that website is full of complete lies and distortions of the truth. What it has about me is not even true, LOL.

    Just like the chart you created that leaves my name out, LOL, it doesn’t even represent the data you collected from your own readers. Next, time tell them not to vote for me, then you wont have to worry about my name showing up.

    You see it as one vote. I see it as the same as Tonie Nathan’s one vote. And let’s just be honest, if it was really about one vote that was no big deal to you, you wouldn’t of had any problem adding it, but this one vote is a big deal to you, so much that with intent you excluded my name.

    Smart Alex, if you want to hang out with me, you know where to find me.

  12. Rebel Alliance

    Mr. Saturn did a good job of compiling the results and presenting them into map form. But Hawaii, Alaska, and DC also have Libertarian supporters working hard to promote our party and movement. If Ms. Sterling won in DC, then it should be shown. There are ways to show DC even though it’s a small area. Excluding Sterling because DC is too small and because you don’t feel like amending the map is a piss poor response.

    ALL of our Libertarian members and candidates are working hard to build support. ALL of our candidates deserve to be respected, especially when they prevail. While I won’t be supporting Sterling, I also don’t think we should go down the road of the GOP which excluded Ron Paul because they found him inconvenient.

    Mr. Saturn, please add Ms. Sterling’s win to your map now!

  13. William Saturn Post author

    I made an aesthetic judgment to create a map. I colored the map in a way that was neat and clean. It does not include DC just as it does not include American Samoa. It doesn’t say who won those places. That doesn’t mean I dislike the candidates who received votes from those places. If I was being deceitful I would completely hide those places in the list below the map. I am sorry Ms. Sterling feels slighted by this but I’ve made my decision.

  14. Starchild

    Although I’m likewise not a Shawna Sterling supporter, I agree with Rebel Alliance on why it’s unfortunate not to have the map reflect her win in DC.

    It’s important for Libertarians to uphold the kind of inclusionary standards we want to see adhered to in government elections, so that voters will see we practice what we preach, and we can help spread better practices in the world.

    That being said, I appreciate William’s work in putting together the poll, map, and results.

  15. William Saturn Post author

    If anyone wants to rectify this great injustice by creating their own map and adding it to the page, be my guest. I am done discussing the matter.

  16. Joshua K.

    In the results below for South Carolina, I assume that should be Perry with 33.33%, not Berry.

  17. Pastor Shawna Joy Sterling Libertarian Presidential Candidate

    Mr. William, I will take you up on your offer to rectify the map. Having taken graduate level courses in statistics, I believe I can amend your map to include all the collected data from your readers that your map presents itself to include. I will work on it now and email you the PNG.

    Rebel and Starchild, thank you for speaking up on my behalf even if you don’t support me for the position I am running for.

  18. William Saturn Post author

    I have updated the map from what I received from Ms. Sterling. As you can see, it is cramped, stretched out, and difficult to read, but at least it has DC!

  19. sparkey

    Some more thoughts from the information here:

    * If Johnson keeps all 3 of his major opponents below 25%, he wins, even if he starts as low as 26%, because Petersen voters tend toward him second, and a McAfee/Perry coalition vote could not pass 50% in that case.
    * If Johnson gets a single strong opponent, the easiest to defeat would probably be Perry, because Petersen and (to a lesser degree) McAfee supporters prefer Johnson to Perry. Johnson could start 10 points down to Perry and still win, especially if Petersen is third.
    * The most difficult opponent for Johnson to defeat would probably be McAfee, because Perry voters in particular prefer McAfee to Johnson.
    * McAfee could start lower than Johnson in votes and pass him, provided that there are enough Perry voters and not so many Petersen voters. McAfee probably wins this condition: Johnson 37%, McAfee 33%, Perry 20%, Petersen 10%. By contrast, Johnson wins this condition: McAfee 37%, Johnson 33%, Petersen 20%, Perry 10%.
    * There’s not enough data on Feldman or McCormick supporters to have an idea of how they might transfer, but they seem anti-Johnson. Wild cards?

  20. Pastor Shawna Joy Sterling Libertarian Presidential Candidate

    Mr. William stated, “I can’t stand to have an ugly map so I did one myself”.

    I can assure the readers that I did not send Mr. William an ugly map. I used his own map and added one name to that. Now, there were no colors to use but pink so maybe Mr. William didn’t like the pink, so he changed the pink to purple and I also noticed that he change McAfee’s color from red to orange.

    The map I sent included the territories of Alaska and Hawaii as one of the comments made mentioned them. It also included America Somoa and DC. It was not cramped how I designed it and submitted via email to Mr. William. I did notice that Mr. William added additional territories which caused the map to look cramped, but I didn’t view it as a negative.

    I take a lot of pride in my work, but this is Mr. William’s article and I understand and appreciate him taking the time to correct the map, so that it accurately represents the data collected by IPR.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *