You obviously did not read the article. The race is continues, with Palin.
The ranked choice is funny because it is a sham and Alaska will likely discontinue the experiment after this mess. But it is entertaining to watch the election process continue to unravel. Very funny. Hysterical. At this point, why even bother?
No, the races does not "continue." This was a special election to fill a vacant seat. The election is over and Palin lost.
But there is a new general election in November, in which Palin can try again if she chooses.
So, the candidates appeared on the same ballot for the same federal congressional seat on the same day but for different terms.
One ranked choice outcome fills the special seat for about 70 days and one outcome leads to a general election for a 730 day term.
Jesus Christ, Res. Docky was right about you and I hate to admit that again.
Well. Would you say that ranked voting is the good old regular norm and standard in Centerville, USA and Mayberry, USA? Or, would you consider ranked voting to be “contrary” to the standard voting practice?
Would you consider ranked voting to be straight-forward, or subject to manipulation?
Did I say any of the crap you are suggesting and assuming? Or none of it?
Gad, I dislike ranked voting because it is garbage and can be jacked up. Want to see how and why? Watch the non-special election of the same candidates in November and see if the outcome is the same. That is why. If the results in the general vary by a statistically meaningful amount, that will be interesting.
Alaska chose rank choice voting. It's no more "subject to manipulation" than any other kind of voting. If you think breaking the stranglehold of the two major political parties in the U.S. would be a good thing, rank choice voting can do that. It also reduces that ability to game the vote by running fake candidates to try and split the other party's votes.
This was ranked choice with open primaries.
Is the point to break a cycle or system or to select the candidate who got the most first choice votes?
It’s an algorithm not a voting contest. No thank you and no confidence. But seriously, very seriously, my observation is just that, and I don't live in Alaska and I don’t vote in fake ass elections.
No, the races does not "continue." This was a special election to fill a vacant seat. The election is over and Palin lost.
But there is a new general election in November, in which Palin can try again if she chooses.
So, the candidates appeared on the same ballot for the same federal congressional seat on the same day but for different terms.
One ranked choice outcome fills the special seat for about 70 days and one outcome leads to a general election for a 730 day term.
Jesus Christ, Res. Docky was right about you and I hate to admit that again.
Not quite. What you're complaining about has nothing to do with ranked-choice voting. It has to do with the fact that Alaska held a special election on the same day that it held the primary election. The ballot had a separate section for each of the two elections. The special election was limited to the candidates who qualified in the June primary for the special election. The primary for the general election is under the wide-open top four system Alaskans' chose to use.
If you've got a beef with that, talk to the Alaskans who voted for those systems. But holding a special election and a primary for a general election at the same time has nothing to do with ranked choice voting.
he/him we all just have to live through it,
holding each other’s hands.
Alaska chose rank choice voting. It's no more "subject to manipulation" than any other kind of voting. If you think breaking the stranglehold of the two major political parties in the U.S. would be a good thing, rank choice voting can do that. It also reduces that ability to game the vote by running fake candidates to try and split the other party's votes.
This was ranked choice with open primaries.
Is the point to break a cycle or system or to select the candidate who got the most first choice votes?
It’s an algorithm not a voting contest. No thank you and no confidence. But seriously, very seriously, my observation is just that, and I don't live in Alaska and I don’t vote in fake ass elections.
Counting votes and declaring the one with the most the winner is also an algorithm. So is counting votes and holding a run off if no candidate gets 50%. They're all algorithms.
The point is to allow a person to vote for the candidate they actually prefer without having to risk wasting their vote on an unpopular candidate.
by the way, which candidate in Alaska got the most first-place votes?
he/him we all just have to live through it,
holding each other’s hands.
Is the point to break a cycle or system or to select the candidate who got the most first choice votes?
It’s an algorithm not a voting contest. No thank you and no confidence. But seriously, very seriously, my observation is just that, and I don't live in Alaska and I don’t vote in fake ass elections.
Counting votes and declaring the one with the most the winner is also an algorithm. So is counting votes and holding a run off if no candidate gets 50%. They're all algorithms.
The point is to allow a person to vote for the candidate they actually prefer without having to risk wasting their vote on an unpopular candidate.
by the way, which candidate in Alaska got the most first-place votes?
Ranked and Open primaries. Yeah. That is an algorithm beyond the normal contests. Great for Alaska. I believe the D got the most votes by having the other D drop out, correct? Louisiana has a similar open primary shitshow if I recall correctly, it has been a long time since I voted there.
Is the point to break a cycle or system or to select the candidate who got the most first choice votes?
The point is to repair the damage caused by having primaries that result in extreme candidates on either end of the spectrum only a minority feel represent them when they go to the polls for general elections. And then see the person elected who may not have been the first choice candidate for a majority but is most representative of a majority of participating voters.
As Res said, if ever third party candidates are going to be able to win office in any numbers it will be through ranked choice variants.
I thought it was quite revealing that 50% of Begich voters opted not to support Palin, 29% picking Peltola and 21% selecting no secondary candidate. Had just a smattering of either group put Palin down as their number 2 she would have won.
Read into this all the conspiracies you'd like but to this outsider it looks a lot like Palin is a highly divisive candidate that folks either love or hate. When you give voters the ability to rank and then front a divisive candidate don't be too surprised when the non-Palin voters combine powers in order to not select her. And as was noted on another thread this was kind of the anticipated outcome if Begich took third: viewtopic.php?p=2796740#p2796740
Comparing outcomes in special elections vs general and declaring any variance evidence of malfescene is dubious at best. Voter turnout is a gigantic factor at play between the two. Couple that with the variable political climate between now and then, the backlash from the result itself, and a myiad of other factors and all you've done is set up a nice confirmation bias scenario in which to be better able to cry foul.
He/Him
"A master in the art of living draws no sharp distinction between his work and his play, his labour and his leisure, his mind and his body, his education and his recreation." -L.P. Jacks
I thought it was quite revealing that 50% of Begich voters opted not to support Palin, 29% picking Peltola and 21% selecting no secondary candidate. Had just a smattering of either group put Palin down as their number 2 she would have won.
Read into this all the conspiracies you'd like but to this outsider it looks a lot like Palin is a highly divisive candidate that folks either love or hate. When you give voters the ability to rank and then front a divisive candidate don't be too surprised when the non-Palin voters combine powers in order to not select her. And as was noted on another thread this was kind of the anticipated outcome if Begich took third: viewtopic.php?p=2796740#p2796740
Comparing outcomes in special elections vs general and declaring any variance evidence of malfescene is dubious at best. Voter turnout is a gigantic factor at play between the two. Couple that with the variable political climate between now and then, the backlash from the result itself, and a myiad of other factors and all you've done is set up a nice confirmation bias scenario in which to be better able to cry foul.
Fair. Though, I do not believe there is any cries of foul. Rather, there is just the point you are making. This is both ranked and open. That is one hell of a combination and leads to a repeated process where, as candidates drop off, ranked choices are applied to other candidates. Your point that the process, the timing and the outcome of this special election will all play into the general election is the entertainment that needs more popcorn. I do not disagree with you even a little bit.
Let me be blunt. Binger, do you believe that the outcome of the Alaskan special election accurately reflects the will of the voters?
He/Him
"A master in the art of living draws no sharp distinction between his work and his play, his labour and his leisure, his mind and his body, his education and his recreation." -L.P. Jacks
Let me be blunt. Binger, do you believe that the outcome of the Alaskan special election accurately reflects the will of the voters?
No.
Can I be equally blunt? I also do not have any reason that the outcome is anything but exactly what was selected on the ballots. I do not think that ranked and open is a straightforward process. The outcome may reflect the pencil marks without accurately reflecting the will. It is fascinating to watch.
