60% of Alaska voters voted for a Republican, but thanks to a convoluted process and ballot exhaustion—which disenfranchises voters—a Democrat "won."
— Tom Cotton (@TomCottonAR) September 1, 2022
September 1, 2022
Is ranked-choice voting more of a scam than other kinds of voting?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
136 comments:
Ranked Choice Voting is yet another scheme - concocted by democrats - to force one party rule.
It is a manipulation.
The corrupt left know what they are doing.
Ranked Choice gave San Francisco its infamous district attorney Chesa Boudin. Direct voting kicked him out of office. Imagine if the choices in the recall had been Yes, No, Maybe.
What we have here is another manifestation of NeverTrumpism. There is a faction of so-called "Republicans" who would rather crash and burn with a Democrat than vote for certain people. That's what enough of the Begich supporters did.
There was a local election recently in Portland Maine.....candidate A got 1873 votes and Candidate B got 367 votes.
Guess who ultimately "won"? Candidate B.
A higher order of reduced accountability and auditing.
Ranked Choice is Soviet.
Direct Voting is democratic.
Not if it helps Democrats!
Swimming in money Democrats fund a spoiler on the Republican sided and clear the field for the Democrats.
Every bill the Democrats pass has money tucked away in it to fund their ground troops while the Republicans use their discretion to do favors for their wealthy donors who want cheap labor above all, but also prefer the Democrats to be in control. The system has been gamed.
If you had billions of dollars, would you prefer a politician who is honest and upright, or one like Biden who is openly for sale? How would you have more political clout? Your one vote or your billions of dollars, money you will never be able to spend.
It’s incredible how the republic managed to survive so long without it…
Ranked Choice is Soviet.
Direct Voting is democratic.
What's the electoral college?
Voters already do "ranked choice" in the primaries, this "ranked choice" system takes control out of the voters hands and is easily manipulated by professionals.
Of course its a scam. Want to elect x, vote for X. Transparancy and simplicity are what is needed. we have questions about voter fraud and manipulation of mail-in ballots, etc. and now we're going to have a ranked system that somehow ends up with one candidate winning despite getting less then 50 percent of the original vote.
How many people understand the ranking? Who is counting up the ranking. Its Insane!
We have a two party system. Why are we "ranking" candidates? Did you know that if you leave the ballot blank, except for your top vote, you help your candidate the most? That's the kind of absurd gaming of the system that shows why its a bad system.
"Ranking" is good for PM systems, where you have multiple parties. No for the USA.
Well of course it's a scam. Just read the mainstream reporting on the results. Reuters is typical:
She defeated Republican former Governor Sarah Palin by 51.47% to 48.53%. Palin is widely known for her unsuccessful vice presidential run with John McCain in 2008.
Sounds like there were two candidates, doesn't it? After all, those two figures add up to 100%, exactly. Well that's not right. Let's go to the actual results of voters' "first choices":
CANDIDATE PARTY 1ST-CHOICE VOTES
Mary Peltola D 75,761
Sarah Palin R 58,945
Nick Begich III R 53,756
Roughly 190,000 people voted. Over 110,000 of them voted Republican, and yet there's going to be a Democrat "representing" them in Congress. Yay democracy, or something.
My husband and I were just talking about this system; he was tentatively ok with it until we saw this result, which seemed awfully counterintuitive. I must look into it more. If what Cotton says is true, then yes, it seems like a scam.
Democrats have invented a system that allows them to win elections they lose. Genius !
⁸Hunter Biden's tax payer funded Hooker: "
Ranked Choice Voting is yet another scheme - concocted by democrats - to force one party rule.
It is a manipulation."
It is a concoction by democraticals and a manipulation.
But it was the pro-dem GOPe-er Murkowski and her GOPe-er staff that worked hard to ebsure adoption of the rule.
In the same way that McConnell helped lead the charge against the Tea Party, Romney marches with BLM, Burr handed coomplete control of the Senate Intelligence Committee to Warner and Lindsay Graham was screaming at the Capital Police to shoot Jan 6 protestors.
Like I said in the other thread, every single change to voting laws democrats (with an assist here by RINO Coke-head Murkowski, make results in fewer Republicans garnering votes.
simple question: Are democrats in favor of rank voting? What More do you need to know?
Ranked choice voting is a way to give some voters more than 1 vote. Nevertheless, just because someone's first choice is a Republican, they are under no obligation to make their second choice a Republican.
Lots of Republican voters would rather have a Democrat than Palin. And they have every right to want that.
I dunno about the scam part but it sure seems to be pushed by people who seem to have determined that the 'wrong' candidates win too many elections.
"Ballot exhaustion" is a quest to manufacture outrage. Just because someone has a first choice, they are under no obligation to have a second choice. It is perfectly appropriate to want one particular person but, if that person loses, not have a preference among the other options.
Palin couldn't get a majority of the electorate, so she lost. Begich couldn't get a majority of Republican support, so he lost.
Hard to see how this would have been much different if Palin had won a primary and then lost in the general.
Like, there's plenty of *minor* differences, and lots of people will quibble over them because they're bored, angry, and need to blame something other than themselves or the candidates or whatever, and that's fine.
Whether ranked choice is a scam or not apparently doesn't matter. It's the system the people of Alaska must have wanted since they voted for it.
Anyone who wants an "elected" position should put their name forward, and one is randomly drawn. The rest get retained for other gov positions as needed, such as DMV clerk, jury duty, etc.
Elections should be a single question: "Should Rep X retain his position?" If the majority vote no, then another drawing is held.
Ranked Choice Voting is indeed rank, as is any other scheme which allows anyone other than the recipient of the most votes to be recognized as the victor. It is also an indication of where the USA has arrived 246 years after the Declaration of Independence; with apologies to Ben Franklin, a Republic, if we can get it back.
RCV might be a bad idea, but I don't see how this election proves it. Obviously a lot of Republican voters couldn't stomach voting for Palin.
“I’ll allow it” - Judge at every 90’s tv courtroom drama.
The way it would be a scam is if it were too complex to be understood. Given how this played out, I don't see it.
There is a chance here where candidate A has more 1st choice votes, but is eliminated in the subsequent rounds by candidate B who had less 1st choice votes, but more 1st + 2nd choice votes. So it could drive to a blander middle candidate, I guess.
But other than being "new" and confusing to some, how is this less of a spoiler than a third party run? You would have to assume that the voters were dishonest with their rankings, and if they were given the more binary choice they would just have laid back, closed their eyes, and thought of the Party line.
Let each state and locality try this for a while. We'll understand the consequences in a few election cycles. They can undo it if they don't like it, or at least the oligarchs can tweak it.
Alaskans have no one to thank/blame but themselves. I have no sympathy here, no sympathy for SF, no sympathy for NYC, nor anywhere.
Were both of the 'Republican' candidates truly Republican - or was one of them a progressive campaigning under a false flag, salted in to dilute the efforts. It happens in districts that have traditional voting methodology, too, as we have seen in the most recent primary waves. Faux Republicans, throwing in during the campaign season to dilute the votes and force runoffs.
It would seem that the purpose of 'ranked choice' voting is to further facilitate that kind of electoral sabotage. It's not very surprising that Lisa Murkowski would clutch at any opportunity to retain her hold on the seat she inherited.
It would be interesting to know if Palin was #3, who would have won the election. I suspect it would have been the other Republican.
Any voting system that requires several weeks to figure out who won an election in which nothing unusual happened is not a good one.
Of course it is. Democrats cannot win on their ideas. But you have to give them credit for creativity when it comes to 'arranging' elections. From weirdly timed election day shut downs in key districts in key states, to national ballot mailings, to ballot harvesting, to frantically and resoundingly calling voter ID a method of disenfranchising people, from having truckloads of ballots hauled off out of state to be dumped, adding unofficial ballot drop boxes in key districts in key states, opening voting schedules from one election day to 3 election weeks, with mail in or drop off and no voter confirmation in some locations, allowing multiple votes from people- living or dead, allowing illegal immigrants the vote, accepting monies from Zuckerberg, Bill Gates and others to orchestrate these arrangements.
And oh yeah- ranked-choice- in which the Democrats can finagle a win in a clearly Republican state by splitting the votes of the more numerous Republicans in favor of their singular one, instead of having just one and only one from each party. Brilliant format.
Ranked choice voting is an absolute scam. That's why the Dems want it.
I called it a scam last time this topic came up and I see no reason to change my answer. Ranked choice is too complicated and subject to manipulation. Simply put, the voter has no idea who they will end up voting for, or even if their vote counts at all. A simpler argument is that Democrats want it, so of course it is a scam. Voting should be easy and the result of your vote predictable.
Actually both Democrats and Republican party Masters are against ranked choice voting because it would give rise to other small political party candidates being elected to office.
In any event, it's all legal so it's all good. Like the electoral college.
Giving votes that were never made for the candidate that lost to the candidate that lost so they become the candidate that won is as far from majority rule as you can get except for golf where the lowest count is supposed to be the winner.
Giving votes that were never made for the candidate that lost to the candidate that lost so they become the candidate that won is as far from majority rule as you can get except for golf where the lowest count is supposed to be the winner.
I've never seen any compelling analysis showing where ranked-choice is more likely to benefit the left.
I suppose anecdotal evidence could eventually build up, but someone has to explain this in a compelling way rather than just point to some particular result.
Of course it's a scam, but not necessarily a Democrat scam if you believe Murkowski is a Republican. Her staff was reportedly heavily involved in promoting ranked voting.
As long as she is benefited, she doesn't care if it also favors Dems.
Link to Alaska Division of Elections explaining their rank voting.
What a bunch of corrupt bullshit. Of course this was pushed by RINO Senator Lisa Murkowski.
On the surface this violates the “one person, one vote” concept.
If it is weren’t a scam Democrats would oppose it.
Yes.
Pretty simple - a majority of Alaskans wanted a moderate republican, but preferred a Democrat to the extremist Sarah Palin. Unless/until GOP learns to stop nominating Trumpist extremists it will continue to lose general elections. Not hard.
I'ld like to hear Cotton's analysis of why he feels ranked ballots delivered an unfair result in this case (other than: "weird way of voting and the Republican lost"). Here's my quick take on what happened.
First round votes:
Begich (R) 54K
Palin (R) 59K
Peltola (D) 76K
So it looks like more Republican voters than Democrats. However, the next round is interesting:
Of the 54K Begich voters, 15K selected Peltola as their second choice over Palin. And another 11K did not pick a second choice at all. As a result:
Second round votes (with rounding errors):
Palin (R) 86K
Peltola (D) 91K
So it looks like a lot of the "Republican" voters who chose Begich would rather vote Democrat than Palin.
What about the 11K that did not pick a second choice? If we assume that (i) all of them were simply confused by the ballot, and (ii) had they voted then their votes would have split in the same proportion as those who made a second choice, then Peltola would still have come out ahead.
But what if they were not confused? If many Begich voters would rather vote Democrat than Palin, then its likely that many others would rather vote "no one" than Palin and so intentionally made no second choice.
We'll never know what would have happened in a race between one Republican and one Democrat. But based on these results, I'ld hypothesize that:
Peltola would have beat Palin.
Begich would have beat Peltola.
(For the second case, I'm assuming that very few Palin voters would prefer a Democrat over Begich, but perhaps I'm wrong.)
So I suppose it would all come down to who was selected as the Republican candidate. The election results suggest that Palin would have been selected and then gone on to lose, but maybe more Republicans would have gone with Begich on the grounds that he is more electable.
All in all, I don't see a sense in which this was clearly unfair. But I'ld be interested to hear Cotton make that case.
The real problem: Two Republicans vs. one Democrat in a ranked-choice primary. If all the Republican voters would have picked the other Republican as their second choice, one of the Republicans would have prevailed. Problem is that even many Republicans can't stand Sarah.
"... than other kinds of voting."
Heh.
I see what you did there.
All voting is a scam.
I'm sure your resident socialists (Inga, et. al.) will be along shortly to explain to us how the Electoral College is a "voting scam."
Americans should be disabused of the notion that they vote for the President. They don't ... well they "vote" but that vote isn't conclusive. They do not choose their president and never have. The Electoral College chooses our President. We do not live in a Democracy. We live in a Republic.
But yes, in these local elections ranked choice voting is a way for Democrats to subvert the popular will. They do this by running scam candidates as Republicans to dilute the vote on that side, while running only one candidate as a Democrat. Ensuring that the Democrat will get the plurality of the vote. This has been going on since the Civil War.
Why do you think they came up with this system? What was wrong with the previous system? The answer is Democrats can't win with the previous system. So this is the system that they impose on us to ensure their power.
We have to come up with a way to eliminate Democrats with a "system." We have to solve this problem, once and for all. A Final Solution, you might call it.
"... than other kinds of voting."
Heh.
I see what you did there.
All voting is a scam.
I'm sure your resident socialists (Inga, et. al.) will be along shortly to explain to us how the Electoral College is a "voting scam."
Americans should be disabused of the notion that they vote for the President. They don't ... well they "vote" but that vote isn't conclusive. They do not choose their president and never have. The Electoral College chooses our President. We do not live in a Democracy. We live in a Republic.
But yes, in these local elections ranked choice voting is a way for Democrats to subvert the popular will. They do this by running scam candidates as Republicans to dilute the vote on that side, while running only one candidate as a Democrat. Ensuring that the Democrat will get the plurality of the vote. This has been going on since the Civil War.
Why do you think they came up with this system? What was wrong with the previous system? The answer is Democrats can't win with the previous system. So this is the system that they impose on us to ensure their power.
We have to come up with a way to eliminate Democrats with a "system." We have to solve this problem, once and for all. A Final Solution, you might call it.
See Kenneth Arrow's Impossibility Theorem.
I find this really quite interesting. I work in an organization that uses what we call preferential balloting to elect our officers. I feel that it works well, and I have never seen it give the sort of results that are being talked about here, i.e. a case where it led to what seems like an injustice.
I have often thought that preferential balloting would be a good thing for US elections. The state of the USA right now is that if you really really really don't want Candidate A to win, you must vote for Candidate B, even if you're quite unhappy with Candidate B too. Voting for Candidates L, M, N, O, or P is a pointless protest that does nothing. But if we were allowed to vote preferentially, we could vote for M then O then L then B. In that case, if M and O and L are as unpopular as they probably are, they would be eliminated from the ballot, which would in the end finish up as a vote for B. But imagine the freedom that would give people to put a candidate they actually want at the top of their ballot! Imagine what data we would get about whom people would really vote for if they were freed from the binary D-vs.-R constraint without wasting their ballot! What if we found out that, yes, the big-name D or R candidate won the election, but the Constitutional Party (or whatever) candidate actually got 17% of the first-place votes? That would be something! But I don't think it could ever happen in today's system, because we all know you just have to vote for the Dotard in order to keep the Vulgarian out of office (or vice-versa).
So I'm surprised by all this. Then again, maybe this "ranked choice" is not the same as the "preferential balloting" that I know and love. I guess I should go read the articles...
Wilson won the same way, without ranked choice.
Tom Cotton said: "60% of Alaska voters voted for a Republican . . ."
Actually, he has no idea, since these same voters could vote to rank Dems and Independents high among preferences as well.
Counting just 1st choices, 160,000 votes were spread among 50 candidates with Palin getting just 27% of those votes, while Peltola received just 10% since Dems don't have much Northern Exposure. When also-rans were eliminated, Republicans, not Democrats, elected Alaskan Native Mary Peltola.
So the Republican party missed the boat. If the strategy of the party was to encourage votes for a party-designated candidate and only to vote using the first choice box or to name only one candidate anywhere on the ballot, the GOP cannot lose.
It's not only a scam, it's a scam that has "SCAM" printed in bright red letters all around the border of the page like the "Nuclear Codes" on the floor at Mar-a-Lago.
"Is ranked-choice voting more of a scam than other kinds of voting?"
Yes.
This is an interesting question. In the first round, Mary Peltola got 75,761 votes, more than Sarah Palin who got 58,945 and Nick Begich who got 53,765. Sarah Palin benefited more from ranked choice, as she picked up 27,042 second place votes and Mary Peltola picked up only 15,445. But that still left Mary Peltola as the winner, albeit by a much narrower margin, 91,206 to 85,987.
To Tom Cotton’s complaint, a bunch of Nick Begich voters, 11.5% of Tom Cotton’s 60%, didn’t think Sarah Palin was the next best candidate. Were they misled by the ranked choice system or did they know what they were doing? They get another chance in November if the same three candidates run in the general election, so we may get to see. Or perhaps he thinks Sarah Palin should drop out for the good of Tom Cotton’s Republican Party.
I don't like "Ranked Choice" as a concept and think it just adds to the chaos.
Having said that, "thems the rules" in the Alaska election" and Palin needs to accept it.
Tom Cotton - who usually has good instincts - chose poorly by using Alaska as an example.
I don't know but its proponents always start with the position that it's the best system and don't you dare resist it you hater. They want it everywhere asap.
Only solution after that is to go to nonpartisan elections. We got some Republicans on city council here because voters are so clueless about local politics.
A party label is actually helpful for them.
Ranked choice is simply beyond the strategic and tactical competency of most voters. It renders results opaque. It is popular with academics. What could go wrong?
OK, having read about Alaska's system now, it seems identical to the one I'm familiar with. All I have to say is that if AK Republicans were so unbelievably blockheaded as to put multiple R candidates on the same ballot as a single D candidate, they richly deserve their loss. That's a guaranteed failure regardless of whether one uses ranked choice or the usual voting system.
Ranked choice voting seems ridiculous. But, I have no interest in a claim that since most people voted for a Republican, the Republican Party ought to own the seat. Nope.
Fucking crybabies. Don't run two republicans against one another morons!
As someone who (like Ann) loaths these two parties I LOVE ranked choice voting. You fuckers can't use the "throw your vote away" scare tactics to bully people into voting for one of two mediocre shitheads.
Functionally, how is this different than a run-off election? Isn't it just an instant run-off election? Are run-off elections "anti-democratic" too you crybabies? The constant whining is tiring. Just go win a fucking election and stop pouting.
To paraphrase Sean Connery in The Rock, losers whine about ranked choice voting while the winners go home and fuck the prom queen.
All voting systems have scenarios that seem paradoxical e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Condorcet_paradox
The median or even 90-percentile smart/informed voters are going to make more strategic voting mistakes if the system is trickier. In areas where ranked choice is used the candidates/parties will need to dictate a precise order that should be cast to maximize the chance of their candidate winning (though perhaps the opposition can specifically respond w/ an amended order that would beat it).
What the voters would want is some tradeoff between maximizing the chance that their favorite wins while reducing the chance that failing that an unacceptably incompetent candidate wins.
It's easy to see how there was no such option to elect a competent president in the last few presidential elections. These near-senile 80 year olds need to be disqualified by a combination of impartial mental facility test today and actuarial projection of their facility 4 years hence.
The RINOS in Wyoming want to institute Ranked Choice voting because they don't like the voter choice for Secretary of State. Also, they want to change the responsibilities of the office of Secretary of State because he's too conservative. BTW, he ran on a platform of election integrity. SMH
A higher order of reduced accountability and auditing.
In ALASKA? They be voter frauding in ALASKA now?!?! How much disbelief can you people suspend?
Howard: "Actually both Democrats and Republican party Masters are against ranked choice voting because it would give rise to other small political party candidates being elected to office."
Once again, as always, Howard gets it precisely backwards.
What is to be said about such consistency in "wrongness"?
Tim Maguire: "Lots of Republican voters would rather have a Democrat than Palin. And they have every right to want that."
Then let us NEVER AGAIN hear from the GOPe-er moderates that conservatives must support moderate republican candidates for the sake of "party unity".
This has been a 1-way street for the Romney-wingers for far too long.
D.D. Driver: "In ALASKA? They be voter frauding in ALASKA now?!?! How much disbelief can you people suspend?"
Are you pretending to not know about the complaints related to mail in ballot rules in Alaska?
Or are you purposely attempting to conflate the issues related to mail in ballot fraud with the pro-dem RCV?
"All I have to say is that if AK Republicans were so unbelievably blockheaded as to put multiple R candidates on the same ballot as a single D candidate, they richly deserve their loss."
"Don't run two republicans against one another morons!"
The parties didn't have a say. There were open primaries that determined who was on the general ballot.
The Electoral College is not a scam. It merely gives all states - which have various populations - an equal playing field.
According to Drago, both major political parties are for ranked voting to solidify their duopoly. He forgets Ranked Choice Voting was voted on and approved by the very independent iconoclastic gun-toting grizzly bear killing people of Alaska.
Like you other crybabies, he just doesn't like the outcome.
A higher order of reduced accountability and auditing.
"In ALASKA? They be voter frauding in ALASKA now?!?! How much disbelief can you people suspend?"
In Alaska, who, what, when, where, how, and, perhaps, why?
The problem is not too Republicans and one Democrat. The problem is one Republican, one Democrat and one loon. Rank Choice weeds out the loon.
Ranked voting is an effective way to obviate gerrymandered districting, which is the only think keeping a lot of House seats Republican. But the same can work in reverse, in a Democrat ic gerrymandered district, which the Dems for whatever reason don't seem to consider.
I prefer when a single party overreaches and gets its ass kicked, as happened to the Democratic Party in Texas in 1994. And which might just be about to happen again in Texas if the Republican legislature doesn't get back to basic governance.
Looks like the qualifier was removed. Is ranked choice a scam over any kind? Probably not, but is ranked choice voting a scam to rig an election? I think it was in this case, because it was abnormal and done to get a certain result. When you change the rules to get a certain result, that's called rigging. When you do it with elections, then it is a scam. Different types of election rigging scams is wording questions with a negative, such that a vote FOR something is actually against it, because the ballot wording is intentionally misleading.
Of the 54K Begich voters, 15K selected Peltola as their second choice over Palin. And another 11K did not pick a second choice at all.
Here is one of the problems - those that indicated more than one choice (but selected Begich first) had their votes "count," while those that voted Begich but put no second choice were effectively disenfranchised - they had no vote counted.
In my opinion, if you are going to do ranked choice, the votes that go to the second-favorite candidate should count as only 1/2 of a vote, as they clearly constitute less than a full vote in the mind of the voter (else that candidate would have been ranked first by that voter).
People in these comments don’t seem to be aware that political parties cannot prevent individuals from running for office. Primary elections will get it down to one person per party but there are no primaries with ranked choice voting. That’s touted as an advantage by RCV advocates— lower election costs by eliminating low turn out primaries. The downside is often a candidate who’s lower on the first count ends up winning.
Sarah's family moved to AK when she was a child and she left the state to go to college. Begich and Peltola are generational Alaskans. I always found it ridiculous when I lived there, but voters put a lot of importance on how authentic a candidate is.
I think other factors are at play as well, but don't discount the power of AK cred.
D.D. Driver said...
Fucking crybabies. Don't run two republicans against one another morons!
Are you really that stupid that you don't understand what the uniparty did here or are you just being dishonest?
You have seemed to me as the dishonest shithead type in the past.
This just shows the RINOs and the D's are always playing 3D chess, and the average Republican can't even figure out checkers.
There's no reason for ranked voting. It was put in to help Lisa Murkey and the D's win in Alaska. Get rid of it.
Its an absurd convoluted opaque way to elect someone. That everyone is writing "walls of text" to show that its really "fair" just shows its bullshit.
But of course, the big brains in the Republican party, especially the conservatives, can't just make a simple straightforward arguement and stick to it. Instead its "Gosh, maybe we should try it" and "Don't whine" and "Just learn how to game the system too". what fucking losers.
It looks like more of the same old garbage.
There are a bunch of people that know they would lose an honest election so they are just making elections dishonest.
There are a lot of dishonest shitheads and they should just accept what they are.
Nobody wants what the Democrats/GOPe are implementing. Nobody wants open borders or high food and gas prices and a depression.
So the shitheads like DD Driver and Howard turn to dishonesty.
You are just lying shitheads.
Heywood Rice said...
Ranked Choice is Soviet.
Direct Voting is democratic.
What's the electoral college?
*******************
It's a means to ensure that states with large populations do not control the outcome of EVERY Presidential election.
Now ask why every state has two senators.
D.D. Driver said...Functionally, how is this different than a run-off election? Isn't it just an instant run-off election?
Obviously, ranked choice is intended to be an automatic run-off without the cost or delay of holding a separate election. However, there is an important difference, one that may have changed the outcome in this case:
Candidates will use different campaign strategies when running against 1 person as they will against more than 1 (in this case, 3). The way they budget their time, spend their money, and approach the issues will be different.
As noted - putting multiple candidates on the ballot ensures a loss.
We are a politically two-party system (like it or not) - and that wedge is being driven harder and harder by politicians and the media. Spreading votes around ensures a loss.
The hatred for Palin has certainly been encouraged by the various sorts of media, but Alaskan democrats are a lot more conservative than your average DC festering sore.
Ed Morrissey (Hot Air) has a good take. Alaska didn't just implement RCV in this election cycle. They did RCV, and a jungle primary taking the top *4* finishers, and a requirement to get a majority of the votes (via RCV)
Ranked-choice voting is only part of the problem. Alaska needs to limit its innovations — either RCV, jungle primaries, or 50%-plus-1, but not all three together. The combination is almost guaranteed to produce absurdities such as Peltola’s <40% win in a state that requires a majority vote. That’s not a representative Representative, and perhaps Alaskans might wake up to the risks that their Rube Goldberg electoral systems created.
Voters should get to cast one ballot per election for the candidate of their choice. That ballot should not get diluted with ranked choice recalculations. Ballots should also be cast on paper, where votes can be counted and recounted by optical-scan readers and by hand if necessary. States should either choose to require majorities or use most-votes-wins systems, but not both at the same time. We don’t need innovations — we need consistent and rational electoral systems that allow voters to send a clear message with their ballot.
Ranked choice voting has no place in a jungle type primary. I have no problem with it within a segregated party primary alone. Yes, in this particular example, this sort of voting method is a scam, but Republicans in this case can't blame the Democrats- they did this to themselves, just like they are doing with mail-in-voting schemes. The GOP really is the stupid party- it is either that, or they really do detest their own voting base.
Arrow's theory says that there's no possible fair voting system, "fair" meaning satisfying a few common-sense requirements to make the system reasonable under various conditions.
What's illegitimate is to switch systems to one whose flaws favor you in midstream.
Much as I admire Sarah Palin, the system worked as intended. If as few as 2/3 of the Begich voters had preferred Palin to Peltola then Palin would be contacting Washington-area real estate agents right now. Instead almost 30% of Begich’s voters decided they’d prefer a Democrat representing them to having Sarah Palin in Congress. That’s on Palin. Sarah Palin — and Nick Begich — had a double task. First, finish in the top two. Second, be the second choice of the candidate who finished third. Begich failed at the first task, Palin failed at the second.
Interesting. In a heavily Republican state, two Democrats (one real, one "identifies as") get more votes than the actual Republican. This bodes ill for Republican hopes in the fall.
Much as I admire Sarah Palin, the system worked as intended. If as few as 2/3 of the Begich voters had preferred Palin to Peltola then Palin would be contacting Washington-area real estate agents right now. Instead almost 30% of Begich’s voters decided they’d prefer a Democrat representing them to having Sarah Palin in Congress. That’s on Palin. Sarah Palin — and Nick Begich — had a double task. First, finish in the top two. Second, be the second choice of the candidate who finished third. Begich failed at the first task, Palin failed at the second.
Should have said one "identifies as Republican"
Is it an election or a beauty contest? Ranked choice suggests the latter - but if only one person can win, then ranking the candidates is a false pretense. The system is conducive to electoral abuse - all a faction has to do to demolish another's chances is to run a candidate under the same party flag. Democrats loves systems that facilitate being gamed, because it takes voters a long time to understand they're the chumps being played.
The top four vote getters in Alaska's primary continue on to the general election. The result of the primary was 1 dem and 3 republicans on the final ballot.
Ranked choice responses are great in marketing research as they help companies focus in on what consumers want or like about their products or services. But, since when did this become appropriate for voting for elected officials??? As if voters need more reasons to distrust the voting system after 2020. Come on man! One registered voter should equal one vote...fair and trustworthy elections are not antiquated, even though they appear to be non-existent these days. When I voted in 2020 the poll people refused to even look at my ID here in NM! I think the USA is hopelessly lost and I refuse to ever vote again. What's the point? How can you tell a politician is lying? Their lips are moving. Politicians are liars, crooks, and scumbags. If they aren't when they get voted into office, they will be shortly. Absolute power corrupts absoluutely, and the women are as bad as the men.
What's the electoral college?
Constitutional.
You're not half as witty as you think you are.
To the comments about whether RCV or other innovations are inherently left leaning, I can only say that the only places I've seen where people are advocating RCV, or at-large Congressional Districts, or other innovations to supposedly increase 'competitiveness' in elections are places where Democrats regularly lose and RINOs have a hard time winning. Those people never seem particularly concerned California Republican Congressional candidates got about 45% of the popular vote but only about 30% of the seats, the same way Wyoming keeps getting singled out as an example of why the Electoral College is bad even though Vermont has a similar number of people per EV.
Ranked choice voting tends to favor candidates who are the least disliked. That usually works against candidates who are highly polarizing. In this case, that was Sarah Palin and the outcome favored the Democratic candidate. But there's no inherent reason why ranked choice voting would always tend to favor Democrats, unless they're much more adept than Republicans at putting forward candidates who turn out to be the least disliked.
Incidentally, Palin and Democrat Mary Peltola seem to be rather good friends, going back quite some time. At one point, Palin even said that she was making Peltola her number two choice on the ballot, above Nick Begich, and that if she herself couldn't win, she hoped Peltola would.
It's also useful to note that, since 2004, 96% of the winners under ranked choice voting had also been the first-round winner. So, while ranked-choice outcomes can occasionally be startling, the norm is generally quite predictable and mundane.
In any event, Peltola's term lasts only four months and the November election will be for the next two years after that. Should either Palin or Begich withdraw in favor of the other, there's a good chance the remaining Republican will take back the seat.
From Sean Trende:
Said this elsewhere, but I think Alaska's system only really "worked" if Peltola would have defeated Begich in a 1-on-1 as well.
I get that Peltola probably would have won in a traditional primary -> general election scenario, but RCV [ranked-choice voting] isn't supposed to mimic traditional FPTP [First Past the Post System also known as simple majority] races. If we're not getting the condorcet* winner/winner closest to the median voter, it's not really "working."
Obviously we can't conclude too much from n = 1, and I've been optimistic about RCV. But we should acknowledge bad data when we find it.
[*an election method that elects the candidate who wins a majority of the vote in every head-to-head election against each of the other candidate.]
https://twitter.com/SeanTrende/status/1565300710991970304
I've seen a lot of explanation for how ranked choice works, or why the Repubs should stop crying about it. What I haven't seen is what's the point of ranked choice? Why? Why use it? Who's idea was/is it, and what was their hope, their end goal? Certainly a normal election, allowing for 1 representative from each party, is the norm and allows for a clearer view of what the populace wants (assuming no other shenanigans).
I'm not looking for a second choice on a restaurant menu. You think I would go to vote looking for my 'second' choice? What's the point? There are not that many good candidates anywhere to imagine you have a second choice.
I know Lisa Murkowski wants ranked choice because that's her way to stay there. If her way was a straight forward election, she'd be all about that. I suspect the Dems are in that same mindset. They could not win an election in Alaska with a straight election, so another format is needed.
Perhaps Republicans should consider this in Massachusetts. Imagine the howls when Markey and Warren are knocked out of the Senate.
Hard to see how this would have been much different if Palin had won a primary and then lost in the general.
Really? You can't see the difference between voters having to select between two candidates versus three?
The commenters who are saying Republicans are stupid for running two candidates know very well that it was Democrats who made sure a second "Republican" was on the ballot.
I have to give the establishment credit (the lawyers running the country), they know how to work the system, and they do not give up. After winning this contest, they turn back around and blame the opposition for the loss and further use that to their advantage to repress turnout in other elections.
The republicans will finger it out and win back this seat in November. Then you people can high five each other for owning the Libs at their own game.
No one has mentioned the 11,000 exhausted republican ballots from Begich. The dem won by less than 5,000 votes. It’s pure bullshit, but somehow it’s legal. Oh, well…
As noted - putting multiple candidates on the ballot ensures a loss.
Only when two more things are true.
1. Both candidates are somewhere near the center of their party.
2. There is only one candidate somewhere near the center of the other party.
Just not clear that only Republicans are vulnerable to screwing this one up.
Obviously, ranked choice is intended to be an automatic run-off without the cost or delay of holding a separate election. However, there is an important difference, one that may have changed the outcome in this case:
Candidates will use different campaign strategies when running against 1 person as they will against more than 1 (in this case, 3). The way they budget their time, spend their money, and approach the issues will be different.
So they have to develop better strategies. Do you give a shit? I don't. Have better strategies and win an election. How is any of this "anti-democratic"? The MAGA Right is just as big of a bunch crybabies as the proggy left.
"Everything I don't like is anti-democratic." So fucking sick of the constant whining. Crybabies.
Temujin: "I've seen a lot of explanation for how ranked choice works, or why the Repubs should stop crying about it. What I haven't seen is what's the point of ranked choice? Why? Why use it? Who's idea was/is it, and what was their hope, their end goal?"
The democraticals and their establishment GOPe stooges want it.
And that's all it takes to sell it to the D.D.Drivers of the world.
The problem with Ranked Choice Voting as implemented (see Arrow, as cited above) is that it doesn't deliver on the promise of allowing voters to converge on a centrist candidate.
Consider Carter, Reagan, and Anderson -- a centrist Southern Democrat, a hard-case cold war Republican, and a idealist progressive ex-Republican. Suppose for example there were only twelve ballots. Five voted for first choice Carter, 2nd Anderson (at least better than Reagan) and then "exhausted". Five voted first choice Reagan, 2nd Anderson (at least another semi-Republican) and exhausted. One ballots chose Anderson, then Carter. And one chose Anderson, then Reagan.
Anderson in this hypothetical is everybody's first or second choice. RCV says this is the guy who should win.
Instead, Anderson would be eliminated in the first round. One of his ballots goes to Carter , as 2nd best. And one goes to Reagan as 2nd best. And the election goes to a six to six tie, with no convergence whatever. So we're back to some kind of "run off" election.
If both of the Anderson ballots happened to have the same "2nd choice", there's no run off. But there was no advantage to any voter who was sufficiently disgusted with the traditional party candidates as first choice. Might as well have eliminated Anderson from the ballot during the (as it was in 1980) Republican primary.
NONE of this prevents skeptics of Dominion software counting machines from crying "foul" about the count methods. In fact, it gives them more ammunition, since the totals of votes for a candidate might not add up to number of ballots issued.
I'm convinced that much of the GOP crash-and-burn this election cycle is due to Mr. Trump making his primary endorsement criteria "who will most slavishly endorse my absurd claims that the election I lost was actually stolen from me?" [Megan McArdle]
This could keep both houses in the hands of the Dems for the next two years, meaning more legislative looting and insanity. Compare this with 1994 Congressional elections (the "GOP revolution") which caused a sane legislative agenda and some basic reforms which were good for the country. It tempered the Clinton presidency and gave us things like a balanced budget and sound growth. Biden will not have that advantage in 2024.
Which leads me to believe that if the GOP can get off it's crack-like addition to DJT (a big if), it can roll up huge victories similar to what Reagan experienced in 1980. (+12 in the Senate and +34 in the House.)
Thanks to the many who explicitly or implicitly addressed my comments. I have a better idea of what went on now.
Yes, only one innovation at a time, please. Jungle primaries followed by RCV makes no sense in a partisan election. That is messed up.
For those who see no benefit to RCV in any case, you can look at my first comment in this thread, and you can agree with what I said or not. But there's at least an argument to be made. I think RCV partisan primaries followed by an RCV general would be great, but maybe I'm overlooking something.
It's true that voters need to be educated on how RCV works. It's not what you might call rocket science, but you do have to know that you should/must list all of the candidates that you would minimally accept. It works great in our organization, where we have a highly-educated staff with non-partisan elections.
Any Australian readers have any thoughts about RCV (aka preferential voting) as it functions in Oz?
Ranked choice voting is one of those darlings of the "smart set," the sort of people that see a system that works but it does not work perfectly by whatever definition of "perfection" they endorse, so the system needs to be "fixed" until it is perfect. This typically results in systems that are better, but only if everyone was like them and could spend copious amounts of time pondering such things. When released into the wild these systems tend to flop, either because 95% of the population does not understand how it works, and/or because the "smart set" failed to understand the flaws in their "perfect" system and it is quickly undermined and corrupted.
This is the same reason why we got things like "new math." New math makes a great deal of sense, if you are already really good at math. It makes no sense to teach a 3rd grader advanced concepts when they do not understand the basics, but the "smart set" starts with the assumption that everyone is good at math because everyone they know is good at math. Smart people can be exceptionally dumb.
Though I must agree with D.D. Driver that one of the things to understand about ranked choice voting is you never, ever run multiple candidates from the same party in a ranked choice voting system, unless you are absolutely, positively, without question, 100% certain that the party is going to win. You can do it in a jungle primary system with a runoff like Louisiana does, but when there is no second chance you coalesce behind one candidate and go with it.
Description of the Alaska system from Jim Geraghty, NR
Under Alaska’s ranked-choice system, in each race, voters rank their choices in order of preference, and votes are counted in rounds. The Alaska Division of Elections counts all first choices. If a candidate gets 50 percent plus one vote in round one, that candidate wins and the counting stops. If not, counting goes to round two. The candidate with the fewest votes gets eliminated. If you voted for that candidate, your vote goes to your next choice, and you still have a say in who wins in the second round. Voters are allowed to rank as many or as few candidates as they like. If a voter skips a ranking, their next ranking moves up — in other words, not listing a second-place choice means your third-place choice is re-ranked as your second-place choice. But if you skip two or more rankings in a row, only the rankings before the skipped rankings will count.
If a voter’s first-choice candidate was not eliminated in the first round, their vote stays with that candidate in the second round. Votes are counted again, and the third-place finisher is eliminated. This process continues until there are only two candidates left, and the candidate with the most votes in the final round wins.
A number of people commented at NR that it seems odd even though you aren't required to rank all candidates, if you do rank more than one and leave a single blank your next choice will move up though choices after two blanks will then be ignored. I concur.
I would also note that there is occasionally a little confusion when discussing this election because some people are reaching back to the 11 June jungle primary where Peltola did in fact finish fourth and comparing it to the current result. (Geraghty did that, referring to it as the 'first round' of the election even though technically it wasn't.)
No one has mentioned the 11,000 exhausted republican ballots from Begich. The dem won by less than 5,000 votes. It’s pure bullshit, but somehow it’s legal. Oh, well…
So what! They didn't want to vote for Palin and they didn't want to vote for a democrat. Seems perfectly rational. Or maybe the republicans have 11,000 moron voters. Either way, why should I care?
Ranked choice voting is one of those darlings of the "smart set," the sort of people that see a system that works
A system that gives us two choices--Joe Biden and Donald Trump--is not "working." Sorry.
Václav Patrik Šulik said...
"Which leads me to believe that if the GOP can get off it's crack-like addition to DJT (a big if), it can roll up huge victories.."
Yes. Victories are there for the taking. But most voters do not want to re-fight the 2020 election, whether they believe it was stolen or not. Mr. Trump's endorsed candidates find it obligatory to see this as an important "issue." It's not. It's in the past, move on.
khematite said...
Ranked choice voting tends to favor candidates who are the least disliked. That usually works against candidates who are highly polarizing.
Just using your comment as an example because the other way to look at that sentiment is that RCV penalizes voters who have a strong affinity for one candidate, and tends to reward voters who are 'meh' about a bunch of them.
Why make voting more complicated? Surely RC is intended to game the system nothing more. Vote for the candidate of your choice, tally the votes and the candidate with the most votes wins. What is so god damned hard about that?
When a system can be manipulated, it will be manipulated. Assuming that the folks who run elections and push candidates are fair minded and guided by their good angels is folly. They are out to gain power and position for their side. I don't except Republicans in this assessment, we are all human beings, not angels. Choice of a voting system should start from the assumption that it will be abused to the extent it can be abused.
Just for the record, the establishment folks in the Democrat and Republican parties were opposed to the ballot measure that implemented ranked choice voting in 2020 (which is why I decided to vote for it). That's probably an important bit of context for all those who think the system was some ploy by the Democrats to create a system that's more favorable to their candidates. The Republican party shot themselves in the foot up here by sowing distrust of the system and not properly educating their voters. Trump's comments about the system at his rally in July played no small part, and while he may not spend any time reflecting on that, that's the major thing on the mind of the Republican party here today.
"It's not. It's in the past, move on."
It isn't in the past. The GOP and the people wanting to stop arguing about the 2020 election fraud is going to learn this the hard way in the Senate races in AZ, GA, NC, PA, WI, NV, and probably FL and OH, too, as the DoJ steps in and allows Cuyahoga, Broward, Dade, and Palm Beach Counties to count votes for the 2 weeks following the election until the Democrat wins. The same will happen key House seats in states like MI, OH, PA, NY, CA, FL and TX.
The Democrats are playing for all the marbles, and the GOP leadership is off badmouthing their own voters.
It's terrible. The "jungle primary" is also a bad idea. In Maine, I believe RCV was adopted to allow voters to vote for a third party and have their second vote count for the Democrats.
Angus King was elected governor and senator as an independent, even though he is basically a Democrat. RCV allows a Democrat and an independent like King to both run without splitting the vote and electing a Republican. Alaska has a similar situation with Murkowski.
In 2018, Republican Bruce Poliquin got more votes in Maine's Northern congressional district, but Democrat Jared Golden, because he was the second choice of those who voted for the minor candidates.
Ironically perhaps, Maine's Supreme Court ruled that this only applies to federal elections, because the state construction mandates that the candidate who gets fewer votes can't win.
"It's in the past, move on."
So's slavery. How's that working out?
Is that a serious question?
Is ranked-choice voting more of a scam than the one who gets the most votes wins?
What am I missing here?
The only reason you don't like it is your favorite hoochie mama Sarah Palin lost because the Republicans didn't figure out how to game the system properly. Don't worry she'll win the seat in November once they hire some elite liberals from MIT to tell them how to run their campaign next time.
The good thing is that this is a meaningless special election, there will be a new one in November so it does not change the balance of power. If any voter is upset with the outcome of the election they now know how to vote more effectively in the November election that will count more. If you want a Republican, make a Republican your first and second choice.
Not having Palin in is a disaster for the media, they would have made megabucks pissing on her for 2 years.
What bothers me about this type of voting scheme is that it makes elections about game theory, and obscures the transparency you get from voting only for the person you want.
Attention DD Driver! You can obtain OTC medication to relieve your constipation.
See to it.
A system that gives us two choices--Joe Biden and Donald Trump--is not "working." Sorry.
I would have said that about a system that gave us Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump or a system which gave us George W. Bush and John Kerry, but in 2020 I could see that Trump had not done a bad job, and that Biden wasn't in any shape to be president.
Most-votes-wins would have elected the Democrat anyway. Palin's response about being the real winner more of her usual bonkers ranting.
Vaclav: "This [Trump wanting MAGA candidates] could keep both houses in the hands of the Dems for the next two years, meaning more legislative looting and insanity. Compare this with 1994 Congressional elections (the "GOP revolution") which caused a sane legislative agenda and some basic reforms which were good for the country. It tempered the Clinton presidency and gave us things like a balanced budget and sound growth. Biden will not have that advantage in 2024."
Lest we forget, the guy who led the GOP revolution was none other than Newt Gingrich, the Donald Trump of his day. Lest we also forget, Donald Trump got 75 Million votes and has 90 percent favorability among Republicans. Perhaps if the people looking down their noses at the MAGA people actually ran against the legislative looting and insanity, instead of promising to get along better with the looters and frowning about the Bad Orange Man, we might accomplish something.
And if the Republicans don't fight tooth and nail about what happened in the 2020 election, they are going to lose a lot more of them.
boatbuilder said...
Is that a serious question?
Is ranked-choice voting more of a scam than the one who gets the most votes wins?
What am I missing here?
You know that the winner of Presidential elections isn't the person who gets the most votes, right? I think you're missing the fact that just because elections aren't necessarily determined by a single vote where voters only (effectively) have two choices, doesn't mean that they're a scam.
I'd encourage you to consider that there may be better ways to do things than the current system that people from both sides of the political aisle seem to agree leaves much to be desired.
"Most-votes-wins would have elected the Democrat anyway. Palin's response about being the real winner more of her usual bonkers ranting."
I hate to say it, but you are push posting. Tying a personal insult with an observation.
Back a while ago I reading a news article about how a compromise was reached between the NY state assembly, the NY state senate, and the NY governor on the budget. Not he actual numbers, but the way it worked.
Assembly wanted X for the budget. The Senante wanted X+1. The Governor wanted X+3. So teh copromise budger they all agrred on? X+4.
Ranked choiced voting. 60% vote for the candidate they want, 40% for the most liberal. The liberal wins as the most popular second choice?
The likelhood of that happening in an actual runoff are esentially zero. When it comes right down to it- binary choices are different then second choices. Second choices are theoretical- you're expecting YOUR candiate to win.
When it comes right down to it- binary choices are different then second choices. Second choices are theoretical- you're expecting YOUR candiate to win.
I might buy that.
So how does that make it more likely that a liberal will win?
D.D. Driver: A system that gives us two choices--Joe Biden and Donald Trump--is not "working." Sorry.
Yeah, that was not the fault of the voting system. That was the fault of a much larger and more expansive problem. Ranked choice ain't gonna fix that, assuming it could fix anything.
In any case, the "smart set" wouldn't see "Trump vs. Biden" as the problem. They would see some person voting Green or Libertarian wasting their vote as the worst thing ever. If it elected the equivalent of Mussolini but no votes were "wasted" they would consider that a great success.
Post a Comment