All that really illustrates is the incompetence of their election officials. It doesnt really say anything about the system, a “tabulation error” using any voting system would have similar effects the outcome.
Has your phone or laptop ever crashed? I’m sure it has, and I’m sure you immediately threw it away and declared that to be proof invalidating the whole concept of cell phones/portable computers. Right?
There’s nothing Rube Goldberg-ish about the concept of being able to include a second or third choice. It prevents 2 candidates from splitting the majority vote and allowing a much lesser 3rd candidate to walk away with victory. In fact, it’s the only thing that gives a wildcard candidate - the type that everyone claims should be elected, but then never is - a chance in hades of winning, allowing you take a risk on a long shot but still back your party’s endorsed candidate if that longshot doesnt win. I know for some reason you’ve decided to hate the concept, but that hate isnt exactly rational.
You are blaming a 2 year old voting system for the reelection of a 20-year Senator? Your argument inherently invalidates itself, since the system you prefer was just as responsible for this “disasterous” candidate being elected multiple times.
Besides, we’ve already been through this - Alaska screws up the whole concept by first holding a free-for-all primary, and only allowing 4 into the ranked portion. The ranked voting system is intended to eliminate primaries.
What does an RNC resolution accomplish? All it is is pouting about how their guy didnt win.
the push for RCV is primarily being driven by Democrat activist groups and moderate Republicans as a means of electing establishment candidates over more populist, conservative ones.
Except it does the opposite, it gives non-establishment candidates a chance.
Think back to when Ross Perot won 20% of the vote. Do you really think that with a ranked choice election, those 20% would’ve made either establishment candidate their first choice instead? Of course not, with ranked choice even more people would’ve voted for Perot, knowing that if he didnt win, their second choice vote would then still go to their preferred establishment candidate. Instead, the third-party votes only syphoned votes from the establishment candidates to toss in the garbage.
The arguments surrounding Alaska presume that the first round results would’ve been the final results under a traditional system. It ignores the fact that a traditional system would’ve forced voters to prioritize voting for who they thought could win instead of prioritizing who they wanted to win. Ranked choice allowed them to vote for a non-establishment candidate without throwing their vote in the trash and handing the election to the opposition.
Dont fall for the propaganda. Ranked choice voting is the biggest (and pretty much only) threat to the establishment.