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

[Xenophon]

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.

In case it wasn't clear I wasn't assigning any of those positions to you, just attempting to get to your logic by laying out some reasons why I could imagine someone thinking the election was off. To your last point I'm not seeing how that is less desirable than non-ranked choice voting.

Voters are typically left with a black and white decision between R and D, there aren't a whole lot of other options out there. If left with only the binary you're possibly correct that the R would have won. However in this instance they were allowed to say "If my number one choice isn't selected then I would like x candidate instead". I can't imagine a choice more reflective of the will of the people than that. It allowed the folks that REALLY didn't want Palin to run with a republican first and then pivot away from that if they wanted (remember a full 29% of Begich supports actively picked Peltola). Unless you're suggesting that the second choice was what was messed with?

For me, if you're actually trying to pick the candidate that the MOST folks want, I'm not sure how ranked choice isn't a better option. I'm almost always going to be in favor of a system that requires candidates to build the largest coalition of support, particularly when that support comes from across the aisle.

ETA: TL:DR Given that some 102k of the voters opted not to put Palin down vs 86k that did I'm failing to see how this wasn't the best outcome for the voters.

[Res Ipsa]

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.

I don’t think you understand how the ranked choice voting worked. The voters all knew which candidates were Republicans and which were Democrats. They listed them in order of preference. If the majority of Alaskans wanted to vote for a Republican, they would have listed the two republicans as first and second choices. Had they done so, one of the two Republicans would have won.

But that wasn’t what they said they wanted. The majority said they would rather have the democrat than Palin. And that’s what they got.

The vote wasn’t for a party — it was for a person. When you claim that the majority wanted a Republican as first choice, you aren’t respecting the will of the people at all. You’re forcing them to vote for a party, when they clearly were voting for people, not parties.

The system delivered exactly what you described as the voters’ expectation - My first pick is A, but if I can’t have A, my second pick is B. Palin’s problem was that too many voters who picked the other Republican as first choice picked the democrats as second choice.

[Binger]

However in this instance they were allowed to say "If my number one choice isn't selected then I would like x candidate instead".

That is not how I understand the algorithm to apply. Though, I believe you that many voters may have interpreted their choice this way. And that disconnection with the voters' belief and the application of the algorithm is not something I like or would be interested in.

The actual application of the algorithm is "if my number one choice is in last place then I would like x candidate instead, and if my number one is in last place after another candidate who was in last place has the alternate choices of their voter applied then I want this candidate instead, and if my candidate is in last place after the last place candidate's voters second choices are applied and also after the second iteration of a last place candidate is eliminated the second choice of that candidate's supporters who chose him/her as a first choice are applied..., and on, and on."

What you are describing would require the voter to choose between candidates in every scenario. A vote with 5 candidates after eliminating one, and 5 candidates after eliminating 3, etc. Ranked voting is silliness.

If there is a different algorithm than what I am describing, great. I would love to see it. For now, I have not seen another application. Meh. Not interested. That is a silly way to vote.

[Binger]

I don’t think you understand how the ranked choice voting worked. The voters all knew which candidates were Republicans and which were Democrats. They listed them in order of preference. If the majority of Alaskans wanted to vote for a Republican, they would have listed the two republicans as first and second choices. Had they done so, one of the two Republicans would have won.

But that wasn’t what they said they wanted. The majority said they would rather have the democrat than Palin. And that’s what they got.

The vote wasn’t for a party — it was for a person. When you claim that the majority wanted a Republican as first choice, you aren’t respecting the will of the people at all. You’re forcing them to vote for a party, when they clearly were voting for people, not parties.

The system delivered exactly what you described as the voters’ expectation - My first pick is A, but if I can’t have A, my second pick is B. Palin’s problem was that too many voters who picked the other Republican as first choice picked the democrats as second choice.

You think wrong.

I am correct according to your source, CNN. I am speculating, without confirmation, that most voters do not understand the algorithm and that this effectively allows some voters a more weighted vote than other voters.

First, the Alaska Division of Elections eliminates the candidate with the least amount of first-place votes. The votes that had gone to that candidate are then assigned to the second choice listed on those voters' ballots.
If no candidate has topped 50% of the vote at that point, then the Division of Elections would go through a second round of tabulation. The fourth-place candidate would have already been eliminated, and in the second round, the third-place finisher would also be eliminated.
Those who ranked the third- or fourth-place candidate first would have their votes assigned to the highest-ranked remaining candidate on their ballots. For example: A voter who ranked the third-place finisher first, the fourth-place candidate second, the first-place candidate third and the second-place candidate fourth would, in this round, have their vote assigned to the first-place candidate.

Even without vote by mail, I would not be playing that game. That is a joke and Alaskans chose that joke. Good for them. Not my problem and not my concern. A system that allows some people to vote three times and others to vote once is ridiculous. Whatever. Have fun Alaska.

[Gadianton]

For me, if you're actually trying to pick the candidate that the MOST folks want, I'm not sure how ranked choice isn't a better option. I'm almost always going to be in favor of a system that requires candidates to build the largest coalition of support, particularly when that support comes from across the aisle.

Binger would agree, had the Trump-backed candidate won.

I don’t think you understand how the ranked choice voting worked.

What's there to understand? If the Trump-backed candidate lost, then the voting didn't work right, whether it's ranked choice or anything else.

If Binger is serious about election integrity, then he needs to compensate for his bias; he needs to point to an election were a Trump-backed candidate wins, where at the same time, he's concerned about the integrity of that particular election, and then point to the mechanism he's worried about.

What's increasingly insane as Binger's election concerns unfold, is not just that a Trump candidate losing points to a compromised process, but the wide variety of failures that result in the loss that have never been at play when a Trump candidate wins.

[Res Ipsa]

I don’t think you understand how the ranked choice voting worked. The voters all knew which candidates were Republicans and which were Democrats. They listed them in order of preference. If the majority of Alaskans wanted to vote for a Republican, they would have listed the two republicans as first and second choices. Had they done so, one of the two Republicans would have won.

But that wasn’t what they said they wanted. The majority said they would rather have the democrat than Palin. And that’s what they got.

The vote wasn’t for a party — it was for a person. When you claim that the majority wanted a Republican as first choice, you aren’t respecting the will of the people at all. You’re forcing them to vote for a party, when they clearly were voting for people, not parties.

The system delivered exactly what you described as the voters’ expectation - My first pick is A, but if I can’t have A, my second pick is B. Palin’s problem was that too many voters who picked the other Republican as first choice picked the democrats as second choice.

You think wrong.

I am correct according to your source, CNN. I am speculating, without confirmation, that most voters do not understand the algorithm and that this effectively allows some voters a more weighted vote than other voters.

First, the Alaska Division of Elections eliminates the candidate with the least amount of first-place votes. The votes that had gone to that candidate are then assigned to the second choice listed on those voters' ballots.
If no candidate has topped 50% of the vote at that point, then the Division of Elections would go through a second round of tabulation. The fourth-place candidate would have already been eliminated, and in the second round, the third-place finisher would also be eliminated.
Those who ranked the third- or fourth-place candidate first would have their votes assigned to the highest-ranked remaining candidate on their ballots. For example: A voter who ranked the third-place finisher first, the fourth-place candidate second, the first-place candidate third and the second-place candidate fourth would, in this round, have their vote assigned to the first-place candidate.

Even without vote by mail, I would not be playing that game. That is a joke and Alaskans chose that joke. Good for them. Not my problem and not my concern. A system that allows some people to vote three times and others to vote once is ridiculous. Whatever. Have fun Alaska.

Can you explain how the CNN article you quoted differs from what I said? Can you construct an example that shows the difference?

[Doctor Steuss]

This video was my introduction in how first past the post voting helped bring us to the place we currently are -- and why alternative vote systems, like ranked choice, are likely better for representative systems. It's over a decade old now, but it has stuck with me all of this time because of how simply it explained it. Sharing in case there's any onlookers who might find as helpful as it was (and continues to be) to me.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s7tWHJfhiyo

[Binger]

You think wrong.

I am correct according to your source, CNN. I am speculating, without confirmation, that most voters do not understand the algorithm and that this effectively allows some voters a more weighted vote than other voters.



Even without vote by mail, I would not be playing that game. That is a joke and Alaskans chose that joke. Good for them. Not my problem and not my concern. A system that allows some people to vote three times and others to vote once is ridiculous. Whatever. Have fun Alaska.

Can you explain how the CNN article you quoted differs from what I said? Can you construct an example that shows the difference?

Yes. You said this. "My first pick is A, but if I can’t have A, my second pick is B."
That is not the same as "My first pick is A, but if A comes in last place, I have another vote for B, and if B comes in last place after A is eliminated, my other vote is C."

If you like that, great. I think it is an absolute comical joke. Hell no no no no no. That is some nonsense. Have fun Alaska. I will watch this, with popcorn.

[Binger]

This video was my introduction in how first past the post voting helped bring us to the place we currently are -- and why alternative vote systems, like ranked choice, are likely better for representative systems. It's over a decade old now, but it has stuck with me all of this time because of how simply it explained it. Sharing in case there's any onlookers who might find as helpful as it was (and continues to be) to me.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s7tWHJfhiyo

I watched the whole thing and understand the simplistic gerrymandering explanation. The other stuff was too simplistic to be meaningful. What did you like about it?

[Res Ipsa]

Can you explain how the CNN article you quoted differs from what I said? Can you construct an example that shows the difference?

Yes. You said this. "My first pick is A, but if I can’t have A, my second pick is B."
That is not the same as "My first pick is A, but if A comes in last place, I have another vote for B, and if B comes in last place after A is eliminated, my other vote is C."

If you like that, great. I think it is an absolute comical joke. Hell no no no no no. That is some nonsense. Have fun Alaska. I will watch this, with popcorn.

There fact that you can’t explain any substantive difference between the two is a pretty good indication that you don’t understand. Without ranked choice voting, there would be a runoff after dropping the lowest candidate or candidates. Ranked choice does the same thing without taxpayers having to pay for another election. With the added benefit that the voter doesn’t have to worry about “wasting” her vote on a third-party candidate.