The November 2022 election

landlocked1

Member
53
7
I think the winner won under the system in place. I think that system has an obvious flaw backed up with the link I provided from the WaPo.
It is not meddling to update how elections are run in fact the constitution makes it clear that state legislatures have that power. The original vote to move to that system barely passed. So adjusting it to reflect the true will of the majority is not out of the question.


Alaska voters approved the state’s new election system in a 2020 ballot initiative, when it passed by just 1 percent — fewer than 4,000 votes
We forget this and Georgia's system is designed to elect a candidate that has the support of at least 50% of the voters. In most states Peltola and Warnock would have won outright, just not with 50% of the vote.
Ranked choice is an instant runoff system. The 4th place finisher, Chris Bye's votes were first distributed, the Begich's until Peltola (or Palin) reached over 50%. 7000 some Republican votes went to the Democrat because those voters felt it was a better choice than Palin. Georgia chose to have a new vote, just with the top 2 candidates.
 

Bus Driver

Bacon Quality Control Specialist
We forget this and Georgia's system is designed to elect a candidate that has the support of at least 50% of the voters. In most states Peltola and Warnock would have won outright, just not with 50% of the vote.
Ranked choice is an instant runoff system. The 4th place finisher, Chris Bye's votes were first distributed, the Begich's until Peltola (or Palin) reached over 50%. 7000 some Republican votes went to the Democrat because those voters felt it was a better choice than Palin. Georgia chose to have a new vote, just with the top 2 candidates.
I have no doubt some in Georgia would be in favor of letting the State Legislature make a "correction".
 

Olsonist

Disgusting Liberal Elitist
29,985
4,539
New Oak City
Here’s how to fix the flaw. If Alaska eliminated the candidate with the fewest total votes, rather than the fewest first-place votes, the ranked-choice system would be sure to elect a candidate such as Begich who defeats all rivals in one-on-one matchups.

Anyone want to explain how this is different from a plurality? It devolves into most votes rather than most support.
 

billy backstay

Backstay, never bought a suit, never went to Vegas
Here’s how to fix the flaw. If Alaska eliminated the candidate with the fewest total votes, rather than the fewest first-place votes, the ranked-choice system would be sure to elect a candidate such as Begich who defeats all rivals in one-on-one matchups.

Anyone want to explain how this is different from a plurality? It devolves into most votes rather than most support.

Maybe so, but given how fucked up the GOP gerrymandering is now, it's a better voting method than the one we have.
 

Olsonist

Disgusting Liberal Elitist
29,985
4,539
New Oak City
Maybe so, but given how fucked up the GOP gerrymandering is now, it's a better voting method than the one we have.

No, plurality is the voting system we have now in most states, something like 39 states. (I don't think AK has been updated in this link.) Ranked choice as implemented in AK and ... Oakland uses most support.


Oakland just elected a progressive mayor by ranked choice. And just like last time in 2010 when progressive Jean Quan won also by ranked choice, the cops ran speed traps, etc in the neighborhoods that supported Thao. To be fair, it wasn't as bad as in 2010 when they lined Mountain Blvd and randomly pulled over cars. They later staged a police riot when Quan was on a trade junket. They've been under Federal Court oversight for decades.
 
Last edited:

billy backstay

Backstay, never bought a suit, never went to Vegas
No, plurality is the voting system we have now in most states, something like 39 states. (I don't think AK has been updated in this link.) Ranked choice as implemented in AK and ... Oakland uses most support.


Oakland just elected a progressive mayor by ranked choice. And just like last time in 2010 when progressive Jean Quan won, the cops ran speed traps, etc in neighborhoods that supported Thao.

If plurality is the system why did GW Bush and Trump win with less popular votes???
 

badlatitude

Super Anarchist
31,179
5,968
Here’s how to fix the flaw. If Alaska eliminated the candidate with the fewest total votes, rather than the fewest first-place votes, the ranked-choice system would be sure to elect a candidate such as Begich who defeats all rivals in one-on-one matchups.

Anyone want to explain how this is different from a plurality? It devolves into most votes rather than most support.

<snip>​

RCV Protects Majority Rule​

To be elected in a RCV election a candidate must accumulate at least 50% of the active votes. Because less viable candidates are weeded out and their supporters' votes are dispersed among still-viable candidates, the race is not decided until one candidate crosses the 50% threshold of support. Ranked choice voting ensures that the winning candidate is acceptable to at least 50% of voters. Plurality rules are such that a candidate who is opposed by the majority can win.

RCV Prevents Spoilers​

Since plurality races with three or more candidates allow a winner to be elected with less than 50% of the vote, two like-minded candidates can split their base of support, allowing a less desired candidate to win. This is known as the "spoiler effect." This winning candidate, if elected with less than 50% of votes, does not necessarily have the support of most voters and may in fact represent views in conflict with the majority of voters. In some instances, vote-splitting between two candidates can lead to the election of a candidate who is undesirable to a majority of voters.
In response to the spoiler effect, candidates face an incentive to engage in negative campaigning against those who hold views similar to their own and who threaten to cut into their base of support. This can in turn drive voter turnout down and draw attention away from serious policy concerns in a campaign.

With the advent of modern polling techniques, some candidates are seen throughout their candidacies as "a lost cause" if their numbers aren't very strong. Polling information is likely to make voters second-guess their support for these candidates. Thus, they find themselves inclined to vote for a "viable" candidate who may not reflect their values as well as other candidates might. This incentive for voters to engage in strategic voting is also a side effect inherent in plurality elections.

If these calculations reveal a candidacy to not be very viable, candidates who represent small but legitimate viewpoints that deserve a seat at the table can often be marginalized and discouraged from running for office. This weakens the range of options voters have in elections, while contributing to declining voter turnout and discussion of issues of importance to voters.

Consequently, this way of thinking often helps entrench the two major political parties and keeps minor parties and independent candidates from attracting new pools of voters or bringing new ideas or issues into the public debate. Indeed, the spoiler effect has a tremendous impact on the complexion of our government and party system.

The only way to solve this problem is to ensure the winner emerges with a spoiler-free majority.

Because ranked choice voting is designed to secure a majority victory, it assures that the so-called "spoiler effect" will not result in undemocratic outcomes. RCV affords voters more choices and promotes broader participation by accommodating multiple candidates in single seat races. Voters may support their favorite candidate without fear of splitting a base of support or swinging the election to their least favorite candidate. Thus it solves the problem of choosing between the "lesser of two evils" and encourages greater participation from voters and candidates, while fostering cooperative campaigns built on a more robust discussion of issues.

RCV Can Reduce Negative Campaigning​

The winner-take-all, first-past-the-post method of elections has led to a dramatic descent into the worst forms of partisan, negative campaigning and mud-slinging. This is mostly a result of the strategies that have recently been very successful in winning elections: viciously attack your opponent and whip up as much support from your base voters as possible.

RCV is a way to change the equation. In an RCV election, a candidate can benefit from maintaining good relations with their opponents. A candidate would want to search for common ground with voters who may not support and convince them to rank them as their second choice. The best example of this is the 2011 RCV election in Portland, ME. When talking about his campaign Mayor Michael Brennan said no voter was off limits, if a voter had the yard sign of one of his opponents in their lawn he would still approach them, make his case to be their second choice, and ask them to also put up one of his yard signs. This atmosphere of respect and cooperation leads to debate on real issues facing voters instead of personal attacks.

RCV Enriches Campaign Debate​

Because the spoiler effect is no longer a factor, independent candidates can feel freer to enter races, and voters can feel freer to support them, or at the very least give them more serious consideration. This means that a wider variety of ideas and positions can be expressed in the course of a campaign, rather than narrowing debate between the usual two major party positions. With more voices competing, voters can be exposed not only to a variety of positions on important issues, but to issues that major party candidates may be reticent to raise, forcing them to take positions on concerns that would otherwise go ignored, and might be very important to voters.

RCV Reduces Impact of Negative Campaign Spending​

Because RCV gives incentive to candidates to do less attacking and more coalition-building, the need to spend enormous sums of money on negative ads is decreased. Most campaign money is spent on television ads trying to destroy one's opponent, but RCV forces candidates to factor in the possibility of being a voter's second or third choice, so "going negative" makes less sense. And with more than two candidates seriously vying for office, the game is no longer zero-sum; bringing down one opponent does not necessarily help the attacker, as a third candidate might benefit instead.

 

Olsonist

Disgusting Liberal Elitist
29,985
4,539
New Oak City
If plurality is the system why did GW Bush and Trump win with less popular votes???

I think you're conflating a bunch of things. Presidential elections use the Electoral College. The winner gets a majority of the EC with each state writing its separate rules for deciding its EC votes, or if there's no majority winner, it gets tossed to Congress who just decide.

Don't even get me started about how bad the EC is.

I'm talking about state and local elections. Most states use plurality. Whoever gets the most votes wins. No runoff. Most states don't have runoffs. Runoffs are expensive and slow.

So some localities and states have been trying ranked choice. They aren't necessarily fast, Oakland took two weeks and I don't know why. My iPhone could handle all of the ballots and do this in less than a blink. But it took two weeks. Alaska took awhile as well. Go figure.

@Joker's dumb opinion piece argued for one neat trick which would turn ranked choice into essentially a plurality. If you eliminate the candidate with the fewest total votes that will result in a plurality. This dumb idea never even looks at the ranking! Luckily no one does this stupid thing.

Instead ranked choice as implemented looks for the candidate with the most support rather than just the candidate with the most votes. Obviously, if someone wins a majority, then they win outright.

Most support good. Plurality bad.
 

Olsonist

Disgusting Liberal Elitist
29,985
4,539
New Oak City
Isn't that how the Nazi Party got into power in pre-WW2 Germany?

? I don't get this. Germany had a parliamentary system of government. We're talking about an electoral system for an office.

Germany was governed in 1930 by the Grand Coalition which itself became deadlocked. Hindenburg dissolved parliament and the Nazis won 18%. It was again dissolved in 1932 and the Nazis won 37%. The Communists, wanting to burn that bitch to the ground, also wanted to end the republic.

 

Marty Gingras

Mid-range Anarchist
? I don't get this. Germany had a parliamentary system of government. We're talking about an electoral system for an office.

Germany was governed in 1930 by the Grand Coalition which itself became deadlocked. Hindenburg dissolved parliament and the Nazis won 18%. It was again dissolved in 1932 and the Nazis won 37%. The Communists, wanting to burn that bitch to the ground, also wanted to end the republic.

Totally could be. I vaguely recalled that the Nazi Part was elected by a plurality, but I absolutely may be wrong.
 

Fah Kiew Tu

Curmudgeon, First Rank
10,377
3,470
Tasmania, Australia
I think you're conflating a bunch of things. Presidential elections use the Electoral College. The winner gets a majority of the EC with each state writing its separate rules for deciding its EC votes, or if there's no majority winner, it gets tossed to Congress who just decide.

Don't even get me started about how bad the EC is.

I'm talking about state and local elections. Most states use plurality. Whoever gets the most votes wins. No runoff. Most states don't have runoffs. Runoffs are expensive and slow.

So some localities and states have been trying ranked choice. They aren't necessarily fast, Oakland took two weeks and I don't know why. My iPhone could handle all of the ballots and do this in less than a blink. But it took two weeks. Alaska took awhile as well. Go figure.

@Joker's dumb opinion piece argued for one neat trick which would turn ranked choice into essentially a plurality. If you eliminate the candidate with the fewest total votes that will result in a plurality. This dumb idea never even looks at the ranking! Luckily no one does this stupid thing.

Instead ranked choice as implemented looks for the candidate with the most support rather than just the candidate with the most votes. Obviously, if someone wins a majority, then they win outright.

Most support good. Plurality bad.

In essence this is the system in use in Australia. Combined with compulsory voting, it marginalises and destroys the nutcase fringes and makes attempts to suppress voting impossible in practice.

No wonder Joker hates such a system.

FKT
 

The Joker

Super Anarchist
8,415
752
World of Shit
In essence this is the system in use in Australia. Combined with compulsory voting, it marginalises and destroys the nutcase fringes and makes attempts to suppress voting impossible in practice.

No wonder Joker hates such a system.

FKT
You are usually better than this. I didn’t say I hated it or even opposed it. My point was it clearly has a flaw that could be addressed with some tweaks. Mandatory voting like in Australia could make it work. 14,000+ voters never made a second choice more than double the difference. Was that because they didn’t understand or decided not too?
The moderate candidate from the right who would have beaten both other candidates one on one, lost because one party split their vote. Will that encourage funding by a party in support of the more radical opponent?
 

Bus Driver

Bacon Quality Control Specialist
14,000+ voters never made a second choice more than double the difference. Was that because they didn’t understand or decided not too?
You can read about that here.

Another reason for the fractured Republican vote: Palin isn’t well-liked by Alaska’s Republican establishment, which supported Begich. A critical number of Begich voters chose not to support Palin. Nearly 14,000 of his voters didn’t even bother ranking a second candidate, while another 7,460 Begich votes went to Peltola.

Even better, they take care to explain why your girls lost.

Ranked choice voting should have boosted the Republican Party in the House race by helping supporters avoid vote-splitting. Under normal partisan circumstances, Begich’s second-place votes would have gone to Palin and she would have won. But Palin and Begich repeated the same mistake they made in the special ranked choice election. Knowing only one of them could survive Round 1, they continued attacking each other rather than helping each other out. Begich called Palin a “quitter” for leaving the governorship to chase national fame and fortune before her term was up. Palin questioned Begich’s credentials as an Alaskan, threw shade on his relative lack of political experience, and cast doubt on his fealty to the Republican cause.

Watch Joker pretend to be outraged at my use of the label "girl".
 

Olsonist

Disgusting Liberal Elitist
29,985
4,539
New Oak City
The moderate candidate from the right who would have beaten both other candidates one on one, lost because one party split their vote.

Not sure if you caught this in the news, but both Republicans, the rightwing nutjob and the moderate nutjob, they both trailed Peltola badly in the general.

1669684900348.png


Maybe Alaskans are just tired of the bullshit.
 

Fah Kiew Tu

Curmudgeon, First Rank
10,377
3,470
Tasmania, Australia
You are usually better than this. I didn’t say I hated it or even opposed it. My point was it clearly has a flaw that could be addressed with some tweaks. Mandatory voting like in Australia could make it work. 14,000+ voters never made a second choice more than double the difference. Was that because they didn’t understand or decided not too?
The moderate candidate from the right who would have beaten both other candidates one on one, lost because one party split their vote. Will that encourage funding by a party in support of the more radical opponent?

Yeah ok - I was being a smart arse.

However I can't see what your problem is. Seems to me it worked as it's supposed to work.

The fact that 14K voters didn't make a second choice isn't worth much.

Did they not make a second choice because they despised the alternatives? Valid.

Did they not make a second choice because they were too dumb to know how the system works? Sucks be to them, next time pay attention. Still valid though.

Your 'moderate' candidate lost because of one simple reason. When it came down to it, he couldn't muster the support of 50.0<something> percent of the vote or more. Nothing more or less than that. The person who won got sufficient first choice votes to stay in the count, then the preferences of the person eliminated to get over the 50% mark.

Exactly as it should work IMO. Happens all the time here in Australia. I generally assign my choices in reverse order - the person I most despise gets the last number, then I work upwards to who I hate the least.

If your candidate can't get that level of support, good, they deserve to lose. That's a feature not a bug.

FKT
 

Olsonist

Disgusting Liberal Elitist
29,985
4,539
New Oak City

From the AP: State Elections Director Kori Lorick wrote in a letter last week that Hobbs is required by law to approve the statewide canvass by next week and will have to exclude Cochise County’s votes if they aren’t received in time.

That would threaten to flip the victor in at least two close races — a U.S. House seat and state schools chief — from a Republican to a Democrat.

Works for me.
 

Latest posts




Top