It was awfully close to Palin being the jackass who split the vote. I think it’s a bit disingenuous to claim Palin should’ve won while Begich had no chance, when the results had the two a mere 3% apart.
I like the notion of voting for a person rather than a party. The issue in Alaska is that they do not continue using the ranked choice system for the actual election, so the final votes are split 4 ways and no one has to win anything head-to-head through the entire process.
I’d think the ideal means of gaming it would be to put the wackos first, in the hopes they’ll get enough votes to bump your opposition off the ballot altogether. Of course, doing so also risks your preferred candidate getting bumped as a well. If you list your preferred candidate first, and they arent a fringe candidate so they make the final ballot, it doesnt matter how you list your choices after that.
It is clear that rank choice is being Weaponized by the left to subvert elections. Here in California it was used to give us Soros district attorneys Chiesa Boudin and George Gascon.
I will do everything I can to sabotage it. As I mentioned, I think the optimal strategy is to select your candidate for all the choices.
no rank-order electoral system can be designed that always satisfies these three “fairness” criteria:
If every voter prefers alternative X over alternative Y, then the group prefers X over Y.
If every voter’s preference between X and Y remains unchanged, then the group’s preference between X and Y will also remain unchanged (even if voters’ preferences between other pairs like X and Z, Y and Z, or Z and W change).
There is no “dictator”: no single voter possesses the power to always determine the group’s preference.
about what can and can’t be achieved. In generally everything can fail in some ways, but if you relax any of those, there are reasonable ranked voting approach which are also mentioned.
The only thing that accomplishes is cutting you completely out of the selelction process if your preferred candidate doesnt get enough votes.
I guess I havent seen it written out in detail, but I presume that once a candidate is eliminated, they’re out and it doesnt matter how many times that person may be listed as a second or third choice.
The problem with how Alaska does it is that using ranked order to replace a traditional primary means two Republican candidates do not go head-to-head for the one Republican nomination. But then for the election they switch to a straight vote count, where it’s a 4-way one-vote choice. If they used rank order for the entire election process, voters could list a second Republican candidate as their second choice, ensuring that whichever Republican gets more votes will still end up with the entire Republican vote. Palin would’ve gotten all Begich’s votes after he was eliminated as the lowest vote total (presuming his voters would’ve listed her as their second choice).
So Alaska’s problem isnt using ranked order, it’s that they’re switching between the two distinct methods as the election cycle progresses.
Meaning, the goal as a Republican is to get 3 Democrats in the 4 slots for the final vote. But if you are the party with 3 candidates in the top 4, you’re virtually guaranteed to lose.
But Palin received more votes. And Begich was the spoiler . . . I dare say on purpose!
In a traditional primary, for example, the winner does not expect even a VERY successful second placer to remain in the race. The margin of the win does not matter. Example:
A few months ago, in Pennsylvania, Dr. Oz defeated the second place guy by only circa a thousand votes in a statewide Republican primary race. The percentages were virtually the same, far less than 3%. But that second place guy’s name will not be appearing on November’s general election ballot. If it did, the dirty Democrat in the race would win for certain.
Splitting of the Republican vote is a sure-fire way to guarantee Democrat victories. And they know it!
Begich knows he has no chance to win in November. He remains on the ballot to contribute, as best he is able, to a Palin loss. He would rather have a Democrat winner than Palin. You see:
The Begich family, in Alaska, has a history of public service. They were Democrats!!
But you dont know how many first-choice votes she received, or (since there were 48 candidates(!!) to begin with) if it was her being listed as second or third choice on some ballots that put her ahead. The results of a ranked choice vote are not indicative of the results had it been a traditional-style vote.
And that’s the problem, that Alaska doesnt follow through on the ranked order election. For a ranked order vote to function properly, it must consolidate both the primary and general election into one vote. If done properly, it would’ve eventually been whittled down to just 2 candidates, and presumably all the Republican votes would’ve consolidated with Palin after Begich was eliminated (with her being listed as the second choice on most of his votes). Instead, Alaska switches to a traditional election for the home stretch, leaving a 4-candidate free-for-all.
In the first round of voting, the results were 40.2 percent for Peltola, 31.3 percent for Palin, and 28.5 percent for Republican Nick Begich. Although 60 percent of Alaska voters cast ballots for GOP candidates as their first choice, under Alaska’s new ranked-choice-voting method, Begich was eliminated after the first round of voting and Begich votes that indicated a preferred second choice were allocated among Peltola and Palin.
These criteria and the hypotheses of the theorem may or may not have anything to do with an actual election.
See my post above that shows 60% of the votes in the Alaska election chose a republican as first choice but a . democrat won. Does this satisfy your criterion of fairness?
You can turn that around and say that by selecting your candidate for all choices your vote does not go to elect someone that you do not want. If everyone had followed my method in the Alaskan election, a Republican would have won. I have not thought it through thoroughly but I think my method guarantees the traditional vote for one candidate election results prevail.
No, that would be far from guaranteed. The Republican vote still would’ve been split.
I dont know if you are misunderstanding the process, or if I’m misunderstanding you. You do understand that with a ranked order vote, your second choice is only relevant after your first choice has been eliminated?
to fight our two party primary nonsense. We get the most right and left wing candidates with most primary systems, and I wish more states would go that way
Uh, would not that lesson have precluded them from, in 2020, from
hypothesizing, erroneously (or falsely) about
instructing social media to limit negative postings about
Pablo Escobar Hunter Biden’s laptop being a Russian disinformation campaign?
ETA: That’s the right Weiner. Ignoring the child molestation issue, people should have been suspicious of his name. What American, 50 odd years ago named their kid Antony?
Brandon’s speech last evening had nothing whatsoever to do with the 2022 November elections. This is why he was offered free air time by so many mainstream media networks, all of which are 100% non-partisan.
This article outlines the details of how the DC FBI raid on Trump, rather than the local Miami office, were probably looking to recapture the secret documents that showed how the DC FBI unit had colluded and conspired against Trump’s election during Crossfire Hurricane and wanted to get back all copies of that proof so they could hide their own culpability as well as avoid their use in any “election surprise” detrimental to the Democrats.
The effect of the FBI raid on Mar-a-Lago is therefore to obscure the real scandal: U.S. spies committed a series of crimes in their effort to unseat a U.S. president, and then ignored the lawful orders of that president in order to keep their crimes hidden from the American public.
It is interesting that ABC, CBS, NBC, and PBS did not carry the speech. Speculation is that they saw how it would make Biden and the Democrats look bad so they dropped it.
