Oh, just cheese and crackers, America! Palin loses.

[canpakes]

Extremely funny, in fact. America is all smiles watching Palin get booted from this race.

You obviously did not read the article. The race is continues, with Palin.

You obviously did not read the article. This race is not ‘continues’. This one is over, and Palin can be in the next one.

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?

For the first time in the state, voters ranked their choices in the special election in order of preference. Once all ballots are received, if no candidate has over 50 percent of the vote, the candidate with the lowest total is eliminated and those votes are assigned to the voter's second choice. The process of elimination continues until one candidate gets over 50 percent.

Noted, that the argument so far seems to be that you don’t like the result, so the process is a sham.

[Binger]

You obviously did not read the article. The race is continues, with Palin.

You obviously did not read the article. This race is not ‘continues’. This one is over, and Palin can be in the next one.

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?

Noted, that the argument so far seems to be that you don’t like the result, so the process is a sham.

I am happy to submit edits for typos on my posts. That requires more work from the moderators.
I have already addressed your second point and you are obviously wrong and trolling and a nuisance, again.

[Res Ipsa]

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.

So now you've moved on to complaining about the kind of gamesmanship that ranked choice voting makes unnecessary. Whichever way you count the votes, more Alaska voters wanted the winner of the special election than wanted Palin. The people chose and got their choice.

Washington has a top-two open primary. It's in no way a shitshow. The people of our state chose it through a ballot proposition. Just like you advocate for, say, abortion rights. So what is your actual problem with the vote in Alaska? The outcome?

[Xenophon]

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.

Thank you for asking, Xeno.

So if the ballot counting is accurate but the will of the voters was denied that leaves us with... what exactly?

1)The ballots were tampered with
2)Ranked choice by its very design is anti-will of the people
3)The voters were somehow duped into making selections counter to their will (either in allowing ranked-choice (#2) but also in their ranked choosing)
4)Some other option I haven't even considered

If you're still in a sharing mood I'd be genuinely curious to run down this rabbit hole.

[canpakes]

You obviously did not read the article. This race is not ‘continues’. This one is over, and Palin can be in the next one.



Noted, that the argument so far seems to be that you don’t like the result, so the process is a sham.

I am happy to submit edits for typos on my posts. That requires more work from the moderators.

The moderators probably aren’t put out by that. Go for it.

I have already addressed your second point and you are obviously wrong and trolling and a nuisance, again.

Opinions are opinions. You can survive some that differ from yours, I’m sure. : D

[Res Ipsa]

I am happy to submit edits for typos on my posts. That requires more work from the moderators.

The moderators probably aren’t put out by that. Go for it.

I have already addressed your second point and you are obviously wrong and trolling and a nuisance, again.

Opinions are opinions. You can survive some that differ from yours, I’m sure. : D

I'm always happy to correct typos. Shades has a practice of editing posts to make them more readable, which I think includes fixing boo boos from time to time.

[Binger]

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.

So now you've moved on to complaining about the kind of gamesmanship that ranked choice voting makes unnecessary. Whichever way you count the votes, more Alaska voters wanted the winner of the special election than wanted Palin. The people chose and got their choice.

Washington has a top-two open primary. It's in no way a shitshow. The people of our state chose it through a ballot proposition. Just like you advocate for, say, abortion rights. So what is your actual problem with the vote in Alaska? The outcome?

I do not live in Alaska. I have no problem with what they did. I think Palin is ding dong, at best. I have no interest in seeing her drama again. I did not like it in 2008. I did not like it when she tried to stay relevant. I am not interested in anything she has to say or do.

Open primaries are weird to me. But, whatever. I think that term limits are a more interesting remedy to the legislative circus than open primaries and ranked choice. But, meh. My interest in it is not accurately described as me having a problem. I don't have a problem.

[Binger]

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.

Thank you for asking, Xeno.

So if the ballot counting is accurate but the will of the voters was denied that leaves us with... what exactly?

1)The ballots were tampered with
2)Ranked choice by its very design is anti-will of the people
3)The voters were somehow duped into making selections counter to their will (either in allowing ranked-choice (#2) but also in their ranked choosing)
4)Some other option I haven't even considered

If you're still in a sharing mood I'd be genuinely curious to run down this rabbit hole.

Thank you, again. Let's do this.

1 - I do not think the ballots were tampered or altered. I do not think they were miscounted. I have no evidence of fraud or negligence. I am not suggesting that there was anything nefarious done with the ballots. But....... they were counted multiple times as the last place candidate is dropped off and their choices were added to the other candidates. And when last place candidates are dropped but they appear as the alternate choice for another candidate, are the ballots still weighed equally in this process?

2 - Ranked choice is still a choice. It is not anti-will. But, the outcome may not match the will of the people were the options presented a different way.

3 - I have never thought anyone was duped. I am not clear what you are asking here.

4 - It appears to me that most voters chose a Republican as their first choice. The ranked choosing says that they would like a republican first, but if that person does not win a majority, my next choice would be "X". The algorithm, on the other hand, does something completely different. The algorithm applies the ranked choice after a candidate is dropped from the bottom of the list.

Voter thinks - "I want a Republican Candidate A, and my second choice is candidate B"
Algorithm says - "I want Republican Candidate A, and if that person comes in last place, then I would choose, Candidate B, or if Candidate A is in last place after another candidate's alternate votes are applied, then I choose candidate B, or if Candidate A is in last place after one candidate is eliminated and the second choice of his/her voters are applied and then Candidate A is the second candidate eliminated then I want Candidate B, but I don't really know who I am choosing at this point then. ..

Eventually, it could be the case were it comes down to the last two candidates and some voters first and second choices are eliminated. So, is everyone really franchised at that point? Or no? (I just like using the word franchise because I went to a Jesse Jackson rally in Times Square in December 2000. "Franchise." "Stay out the Bushes.")

tldr: I think the outcome of a D v. Palin election would be different than an open and ranked election with one D and many R's. I don't like Palin. But I think the outcome would be different.

[Gadianton]

Did I say any of the crap you are suggesting and assuming? Or none of it?

it's pretty clean math. So far, there is a 100% perfect correlation between your election integrity skepticism and a non-Trump backed candidate losing an election. And no skepticism if a Trump-backed candidate wins. .

I will not further consider any of your election integrity concerns until you present the concern in context of a Trump-backed candidate winning.

[Binger]

Did I say any of the crap you are suggesting and assuming? Or none of it?

it's pretty clean math. So far, there is a 100% perfect correlation between your election integrity skepticism and a non-Trump backed candidate losing an election. And no skepticism if a Trump-backed candidate wins. .

I will not further consider any of your election integrity concerns until you present the concern in context of a Trump-backed candidate winning.

Who was Trump backed? Palin? That is hysterical. Trump also endorsed Oz.