Alaska Elected a Democrat to Congress for the First Time in 50 Years
Mary Peltola will only be the third Democrat, as well as the first Native Alaskan, to represent Alaska since it became a state.

On Wednesday, more than two weeks after Alaskans went to the polls, results finally came in the race for Alaska's sole congressional seat: In an upset, former state Rep. Mary Peltola has defeated two opponents with better funding and name recognition to become the next member of Congress from the state. She will be the first Democrat elected to that seat in nearly 50 years, and only the third Democrat since Alaska became a state. She is also the first Native Alaskan to represent the state in Congress.
Rep. Don Young (R–Alaska) was first elected in 1972, and held the seat continuously until his death in March. In a special election to serve out the rest of Young's term, Peltola faced two Republicans: former Gov. Sarah Palin and Nick Begich, grandson of Young's predecessor.
This was the first election cycle since Alaska switched to a new voting system using ranked choice voting on the general election ballot. Instead of selecting a single candidate, voters rank candidates by preference; if no candidate wins an outright majority, then the lowest performer is eliminated, and that candidate's votes are tallied again with their second choice counted first.
Peltola won the first round of voting, but Palin's and Begich's combined vote shares totaled nearly 60 percent. One might assume that once Begich, the lower performer, was eliminated, his votes would simply be re-allocated to Palin, who would win.
Instead, only half of Begich's voters picked Palin as their second choice: Nearly three out of ten chose Peltola second, and another 21 percent did not choose any other candidate. After all second choices were counted, Peltola prevailed over Palin, 52-49.
Palin is unpopular in the state, and criticized ranked choice voting during her campaign. After the results were announced, Palin blamed the new voting system and said that Begich should have simply bowed out.
Given Palin's unpopularity, it's entirely possible that she would have lost in a head-to-head match-up against Peltola anyway. But with ranked choice voting, voters are freed up to vote their conscience, rather than whoever they think is most electable, without having to worry about voting for a "spoiler" candidate.
Notably, ranked choice was not the reason it took so long to tally the votes. The sparsely-populated state accepts mail-in ballots up to 10 days after election day, as long as they are postmarked in time.
In a statement after the results were announced, FairVote, a nonprofit which supports ranked choice voting, highlighted a poll showing that 62 percent of Alaskan voters approved of the new system, while 85 percent found it easy to figure out.
Peltola will serve out the rest of Young's term, which will end in January. She is also running on November's ballot to serve in the seat in the next term.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
Alaska Elected a Democrat to Congress for the First Time in 50 Years
What’s Murkowski, chopped liver?
My friends makes 80-100 every hour on the internet.. (US-07) she has been without work for eight months but the previous month her revenue was 20,000 only working on the laptop 5 hours a day..
.
CHECK THIS LINK:>>>> https://googleservice045.netlify.app/
Don't to it kids. It's a phone sex service faking Palin's voice targeting Republicans who can neither get laid nor buy an AK with which to shoot up a Safeway or women's clinic.
I am creating eighty North American nation greenbacks per-hr. to finish some web services from home. I actually have not ever thought adore it would even realisable but (as-12) my friend mate got $27k solely in four weeks simply doing this best assignment and conjointly she convinced Maine to avail. Look further details going this web-page.
.
---------->>> https://smartpay21.pages.dev
Hey Sarah, how's that being a blithering idiot thing working out for ya?
Didn't Palin run on a platform calling for a Constitutional Prohibition Amendment to force women to reproduce at gunpoint? Make American Girls Anklegrab doesn't have much clout anymore.
I would be glad to have someone force my mother to north me at gunpoint
Alaska Elected a Democrat
In New Jersey, she'd probably be a Republican.
Yeah Reason!
And if election officials simply throw away their votes, voters are also freed up to vote their conscience!
In actual fact, ranked choice voting just complicates elections, makes them less transparent, and makes it even harder to detect fraud. It also favors fringe candidates and more radical outcomes.
You're always free to vote your conscience. That's what voting is for.
We're the members of the green party in Wisconsin allowed to vote their conscious?
You're always free to vote your conscience. That's what voting is for.
Right. And some voting methods are more resistant to you doing so than others. A past-the-post election between Team Red, Team Blue, and NOTA is more likely to have NOTA win if *either* NOTA is really popular *or* Team Red and Team Blue are really hated. RCV means NOTA has to be more preferred to every other candidate on the ballot at every rank. As was the case here, if 33% of voters write down NOTA, and nothing else, and the other 2/3 write down some combination of Candidate A, Candidate B, then Candidate C, the fact that they have a serial preference makes their vote(s) worth more.
NOTA not being on the ballot either way is exceptionally pointed but the rule(s) still apply and the empirical results still stand: RCV is resistant to strategic voting (arguably abrogating the will of the people) and susceptible to strategic campaigning (same thing again) and, regardless of the theory, hasn't exactly liberated Oakland, Berkeley, SF, Ireland, Australia, or India.
Argue against me all you like, a lot of people voted for Palin first, Begin second and Begin first, Palin second and their ranked votes weren't count specifically because of the ranking. Really hard to say those people got to vote their conscience.
RCV is resistant to strategic voting
Sorry, tactical voting. It's only here in Chicago that we vote strategically.
"...lot of people voted for Palin first, Begin [sic] second and Begin [sic] first, Palin second and their ranked votes weren't count specifically because of the ranking."
How do you figure? The people who voted Palin/Begich had their votes count for Palin. Those who voted for Begich/Palin also wound up with their votes ultimately being given to Palin. In either case, their vote affected the final outcome. They just didn't win.
The only people who might complain are those who voted for Begich and no one else. Their votes helped force an instant runoff but stopped affecting the result after that.
How do you figure?
It's intrinsic to the voting method and self-evident from your explanation: "The people who voted Palin/Begich had their votes count for Palin." They didn't vote for Palin, they voted for Palin/Begich, their vote for Begich wasn't just cast for a loser, it specifically wasn't counted by the methodology. Same for Begich/Palin, they didn't vote for Palin.
see Condorcet Criterion. I don't think it spoiled this election but, more to the point, IRV is not intrinsically better at choosing the more popular candidate when the people vote for the more popular candidate.
Cite? Assertion is not evidence…
an Elephant lost... what more evidence does NOYB need?
Cite? Assertion is not evidence…
OK, rank choice vote, three candidates A, B, and C. I'll give you your preference and a ballot, you give me what you think your vote should be to express that preference and I'll tell you if you got it right. Deal?
My argument against ranked elections was results... like Jo's campaign being saddled with an illiterate anarcho-commie, and the Anschluss where anarcho fascist girl-bulliers planted the Austrian Swastika over Reno. But unless the AK gal is a bomb-throwing serial murdering, arsonist, crash-monger, that hypothesis has a big strike against it.
"The Two-Party Establishment Forever!" - supposedly libertarian guy is Reason's comment section
is = in
Hitler was the third party. Lincoln was the third party. This notion that "We all vote third party, a libertarian wins the Presidency, and libertopia ensues!" is a false narrative being pushed by bleeding-heart libertines if not outright progressive structured opposition.
It's far more important to get an actual, 'Fuck you, cut spending' libertarian on the ballot anywhere and everywhere, Republican, Democrat, Libertarian, other, past-the-post, instant-runoff, Condorcet, or other than it is to pretend that getting a squish libertarian in a rank-choice election is our best hope. If we were talking Dave Smith, Gary Johnson, and Jo Jorgensen for President then *maybe* the bullshit about RCV would make some sense. Barring that, the idiocy of "Fuck libertarian principles and fuck exposing the populace to them, we've got elections to game and win based on the math." is not libertarianism (or math).
"The Two-Party Establishment Forever!" - different supposedly libertarian guy in Reason's comment section
Multi-party systems allow splinter parties to have disproportionate influence, and they allow communists and fascists to come to power.
Of course, that's the reason you like it, isn't it? It's no accident that you use the name of a Nazi military leader as your name on Reason.
Libertarians favor small government, regardless of how the government is elected.
But between a two party system and a multi party system, you can bet that I prefer the two party system because it leads to more democratic and less extremist outcomes.
Ranked choice voting does none of those things. On the contrary, it simplifies the election process (by eliminating the need for expensive run-off elections), improves transparency (or at least, is no worse) and has no effect in either direction about fraud detection. Experience in other jurisdictions and contexts shows that it favors moderate candidates. It does favor third-party candidates over the traditional approach to elections but only when those third-party candidates are a better representation of the populace than the candidates offered by the majority parties.
It sure as hell disfavors libertarian candidates, that much is clear. Governator Sarah impaled just abt every libertarian out of AK. Her running against another Kleptocracy party favorite shows only that ranked voting has this once ditched worse for bad.
With top choice voting, polls and exit polls directly correspond to outcomes. It is next to impossible to poll for RCV.
If it favors third-party candidates, by definition it favors more extreme candidates, since the two parties together represent the vast majority of voters.
re: "by definition it favors more extreme candidates"
Wow, that is astonishingly wrong both as a statement of statistics and as a definition of extremism.
Only 34% of Americans identify as independents, and even those usually lean towards one party or another.
The two major parties in the US are moderate by the standards of the electorate; that's what WTA elections give you.
But, hey, you're welcome to tell me in what way third party voters do not represent positions far removed from the political center. Please, do go ahead.
Ranked choice does not necessarly help extremests from either side of the spectrum (you should name some specific examples) Last I heard there were no actual Marxists of Nazi's elected to any office at any level of government in Australia ( and there is a lunatic fringe there like anywhere else) There left wingers and right wingers but no spittle spraying crazy. America in its wisdom has a lady named Green? in some position ?
On the contrary, it simplifies the election process (by eliminating the need for expensive run-off elections), improves transparency (or at least, is no worse)
Just like I said to Untermensch: OK, rank choice vote, three candidates A, B, and C. I'll give you your or my preference and a ballot, you give me what you think your vote should be to express that preference and I'll tell you if you got it right. Deal?
RCV makes tactical voting more difficult and makes strategic campaigning more effective.
Facts in evidence:
2009 Burlington Mayoral Election
Summary:
-Wright (Conventional Republican) would have won under plurality.
-Kiss (Vermont Progressive) won under IRV, and would have won under a two-round system vs Wright (under Burlington's 40% threshold or the traditional 50%).
-Montroll (Conventional Democrat) would have won if the ballots were counted using Borda count, Bucklin, Coombs, Keener-Eigenvector, Sinkhorn, or any Condorcet method (Schulze, Ranked pairs, Copeland, etc.).
The overall less popular and more radical candidate won not just in spite of RCV, but *specifically because of (the method of) RCV*.
Anyone born in Alaska is a native Alaskan.
But their previous Representatives in the House of Representatives were born in Minnesota or California.
Isn't native alaskan the same as a Mongol?
/soft Badum-tissss.
I'm no soothsayer, but ever since I figured out Soros spent $708 million in the 2020 election (not to mention his investment in Dominion Voting) somehow I knew Alaska would be the next easy pickings after Georgia for the Billionaire Blue Wave.
Cuckoo.
...and they changed there whole election process to enable that. It was called ranked choice voting, and it is election fraud. The parties should pick their candidates, not the state. The GOP will have to wise up to beat this fraud. Lesser candidate need to bow out and not split the vote, giving the 3rd or 4th choice Democrat a place on the ballot.
Yep. Election day was August 16 in Alaska. They've been "counting the votes" for two weeks now. France does it in one day.
Is France a vast tundra filled with mountains with parts only accessible by boat or plane?
No, but the French are not known for their efficiency- with their endless smoking breaks, three hour lunches, and frequent strikes.
No France has 67 million people. Alaska has 750,000. And every town has a school or a police station or a church or a fire station where they can count votes.
It's almost like you didn't read the article, or something…
You might want to actually read it: It wasn't that long.
As an Alaskan, the delay makes perfect sense to me. If you live in Egegik, or out in the Bush 50 miles from Skwentna, there is no polling place you can go to and your mail is dependent on when the next plane or boat is headed to the nearest place with a post office and someone can drop it off. You might be waiting for a month to have it delivered. Counting votes in France is going to be magnitudes of order easier than getting the votes from rural Alaska and counting it.
And lookit how quickly France defeated the Hitlerites!
It is not simply ranked choice voting, it is lumping in the primary with the general election. The GOP voters split, there is no period in the campaign for the GOP to select its candidate and rally around that person before they face the other general election candidates. The assertion that the "second choice" accurately reflects what the voters would do in a normal election is unfounded.
What it does is takes down the power of the parties. I think a lot of people would like to see people more in control and parties less in control.
^ This, exactly.
The counter-argument is that other things that have taken down the power of the parties have had unintended consequences that have left the people in even less control than they were before. Something will fill the power vacuum but it might not be us. The risk of unintended consequences is real. But I think it's still worth a try...
And that's a good thing... why?
Yeah, look to 20th century European history to see the consequences.
"The GOP will have to wise up to beat this fraud. Lesser candidate need to bow out and not split the vote, giving the 3rd or 4th choice Democrat a place on the ballot."
This statement is incredibly incorrect. All indications were that Palin was less popular than Petola. Had people not had the option to vote for #2 GOP guy, all indications (via the preferences of their 2nd vote) are that they would have voted for Petola.
Did you miss that literally half of the voters who voted for the 2nd republican chose the democrat as their second choice? What do you think would have changed if it was just Palin vs. Peltola?
Palin is unpopular in the state
So unpopular, she only won a measly 49% of the vote compared to her opponents landslide victory of 52% of the vote. And none of you math geeks point out that that's 101% of the vote.
The joys of ranked choice voting.
I notice that in true Reason fashion, Joe does not give the actual percentages of votes on the first count. Just that the democrat got 40% or so and the republicans got 60% or so. Then the magic happened, and the democrat got 52% and the republican 49%. (If math is racist, I guess rounding is ultra-racist)
What I get is that this election was on the "one man, three votes" principle.
Why is it important that two people combined beat one person? Unless it is your view that a vote for one republican is always a vote for all republicans...You aren't saying that, are you?
When you come in second place with 30% of the vote and still lose when they add your second choice tally, you must not be that popular, just preferred by many over someone else.
THAT is normal for Kleptocracy ballot-counting.
For the general election in November, Palin and Begich need to figure out who should run if the Republicans want to win. If both run then they will both lose.
And by the way that would happen in the case of a standard vote as well. Normally what would happen is either Petola would have won with the plurality, or they'd have had a runoff a few months later, and Palin would have lost to Petola then.
Well stated. That point is being missed by the critics of ranked-choice-voting above.
No. They didn't.
This is what happened.
The left is undermining our elections in every way they can. This cheating method was foisted upon Alaska in the year of the 'fortified' elections and ensures perpetual fortification.
Which is the point of ALL of these schemes from motor voter, to same day registration without ID to RCV, Popular Vote Compact and everything else.
The Democrats want EVERYONE to vote--just so long as they can dictate whatever the outcome of that vote will be.
In the German Democratic Republic, everyone voted. It was a pure democracy. Granted there was only one person on the ballot and you'd be disappeared if you didn't check the box, but everyone voted! Democracy!
How was it "foisted" upon Alaska? It was a referendum voted on by Alaskans?
Yes, people were talked into it with the same kind of b.s. people are spreading here about RCV.
RCV would be my preferred voting system. A result some do not like does not make it a bad system. GOP should focus on running better candidates. Palin or the other fellow could have stepped aside too. Shot themselves in the foot here.
This was no different a result than what happens all over the country with runoff elections when a candidate cannot get 50%. The top contenders have a run-off election. Except in this case, it was done (semi) immediately.
No Nixon-ordered IRS subsidies financing the Looter Kleptocracy--what we had before the LP got birth control legalized--was an OK system, envied everywhere except China and Moscow.
"RCV would be my preferred voting system."
Honest question: are you aware of other voting systems, such as approval voting or Condorcet elections? Turns out there are zillion of reasonable ways to hold elections, plurality voting (what the US tends to use) being just one. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electoral_system#Systems_used_outside_politics has some references.
If you want to nerd out on electoral systems, it turns out Kenneth Arrow proved there's no perfect election system. Every system is vulnerable to at least one flaw. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arrow%27s_impossibility_theorem for way more gory detail than you wanted to know.
Gosh, the GOP would love to do that. But that power was taken out of the hands of the parties when the US adopted the primary system.
And why exactly is that?
what a surprise, the usual Trumptard subjects whining their butthurt in the comments section because they didn't get what they wanted in an election.. this time RCV is to blame
yawn
How boring. TDS-addled piles of shit here celebrating since they finally found someone supported by Trump who lost.
Stuff your TDS up your ass, steaming pile of shit.
lol https://giphy.com/gifs/cry-baby-TL2Yr3ioe78tO
It's as if 2016 - 2020 didn't exist for you.
I dunno.. I remember the House, Senate, and White House all going Elephant by the end of that first year and all going Donkey by the end of that last year and the Most Libertarian President Ever in charge of the whole shebang in between... I got tired of all that winning but I did manage to jot down a few notes on flashcards for later reference
That's good to hear. I've Mute Losered 80 Republican infiltrators and never have to see their pitiful sobbing and rabid carpetbiting fits. I sometimes wonder which one of them offed itself at the Safeway, and which ones got fired for cowardice at the Uvalde shooting--or beaten up by a pregnant girl they insulted.
You choose to wear the name of a Nazi war criminal, and you presume to lecture other people about elections and democracy?
"Alaska Elected a Democrat to Congress for the First Time in 50 Years"
Even if true I'm not sure why we're supposed to care about a congressional race in Alaska. I suppose it would've been more interesting if the new rank choice voting system had led to a third-party candidate getting elected.
Moreover, even though a Democrat may not have held that specific house seat in forever, I believe there was a Democratic Senator named Begich who represented Alaska for one term in the US Senate.
damn that truthful reporting! there are higher considerations than accuracy!
I suspect Reason's interest in this is RCV, not a too-local race in a faraway state.
If you read her website, her main policies are pretty center-of-the-road. She gives a soft, gentle, minor nod to the environment, but clearly in a way that doesn't upset the local factors in how Alaskans have by and large earned their livings. She says nothing about guns which would probably be campaign suicide in Alaska. She has some rather thin platitudes about working families.
Conspicuously absent from her platform is platitudes about BIPOCS, trans people, identity politics, police reform etc.
In today's Democratic party, she's probably considered pretty right wing.
Well, I was wrong about the trans thing, at the very, very bottom of her page she makes a relatively neutral statement on LGBTQ+ rights.
Just above that, she makes another statement on abortion:
She does seem to steer in the opposite direction of "defund/abolish" movement so popular in the Democratic party.
Yeah, so from a left-coast perspective, she's pretty right wing.
Palin is not popular, that is why she lost. She also tied her campaign to Trump who is also unpopular with many independents.
The GOP needs to wake up and stop thinking that support from Trump will win general elections. A lot of independents passionately hate Trump and his abrasive personality. GOP candidates should learn that cozying up to Trump is not a winning general election strategy. They should just focus on the issues, and then they will win.
RINO!
lololol
"...A lot of independents passionately hate Trump and his abrasive personality..."
Yes, there are quite a few TDS-addled shit-piles with an adolescent focus on personality. You, perhaps?
People are just not that into Trump. It was different before January 6. Lord knows I liked the guy.
Palin was urging goons with guns to threaten and shoot doctors and girls back when only Cubans would listen to Orange Don. Their platform offered to do to birth control what the 18th Amendment did to beer... and to the economy!
"Alaska Elected a Democrat to Congress for the First Time in 50 Years"
Joe creams his jeans!
Clearly.
In Alaska last night Sarah Palin won the election. In the first round, she won a plurailty.
Sarah Palin got the most single votes.
Most people voting voted for a Republican.
But RCV gave the election to the Democrat.
Why?
Under normal conditions areas in which a majority is required to win have a runoff election between the top two vote getters if no majority occurs in the general.
This way voters can make an informed decision at every stage of the process.
Under RCV however, voters get a first choice and then a series of hypotheticals they don't know all the variables in that they have to answer in the voting booth. One wrong calculation can disenfranchise you.
Because you never get a look at the subsequent rounds. You never get to make a choice after the first with all the facts in front of you.
And what facts do you think they didn't have in front of them?
First choice: A
Second choice: B (if A isn't competitive)
It's exactly like having a runoff without A. Do you think voters are that stupid to not get that?
re: "In the first round, [Palin] won a plurailty."
No, she did not. As the article already says, Peltola won the first-round plurality.
re: "Under normal conditions ...."
Nothing you've said there is any different under ranked choice voting. It is indistinguishable from holding a runoff election.
ITT: a bunch of idiots don't understand how ranked choice voting works. I'm ashamed of all you voting conspiracy nuts. Go post on Townhall or something.
She is also the first Native Alaskan to represent the state in Congress.
I had to read this statement several times before I understood what it really meant. The first two times, I was like... so the previous representatives weren't from Alaska?
If RCV didn't benefit libtards, Reason wouldn't support it. Enjoy your strict gun laws, losers!
? explain your logic. The way I see it is the least popular candidate is the first to be dropped out of the voting process. The worst case scenario is the majority of the electorate get either their favourite or their second choice and can get on with their life with an "oh well, I guess..."
You'd think that the GOP would have been inclined to RCV after the 1992 election, when it's quite conceivable that under RCV, Bush I would have been re-elected.
RCV is fairer than FPTP under almost all scenarios. It's not worth bothering to argue about it. And I don't give a shit who wins as a result of it.
No doubt the fugazi libertarians are celebrating a win for their beloved democratic party pretty hard. But the truth is that a lot of people simply didn't even bother wasting their time to vote in this because the real election is in just two months. What's the point of going out to vote for a four month lame duck session in which basically nothing is going to get done anyway?
Ranked choice (or preferential ballot) opens up the contest to independents, third parties and ..... OMG, Libertarians.
Just toy with the idea of President Ross Perot and where the USA would be today. However, the political establisment do not like the idea at all ; any challenge to a system that they are comfortable controlling must be bad. The way campaigning works these days is to def***te on the other guy and make your guy spotless. They would now have to figure out a graceful way of saying that other candidate is s**ty but that other guy over there only smells bad.(because you want the bad smelling votes coming to you as a second choice).
People in 'third' parties like to lie to themselves and say that they don't get elected because of barriers to entry.
This let's them feel better about being such losers and gives them persecution as a rallying point.
But it's not true.
They don't get elected because, in the libertarian case, they have no track record of accomplishment. Do their policies actually work? Who knows?
And in the case of commies, greens, socialists and what, people know all too well that their policies don't work. The people who form leftist 'parties' in systems that allow real voting don't seem to understand that leftism is always imposed--it pretends at voting AFTER the people have had their rights stripped away. Particularly the right to self defense.
I was glad to see that a couple of people mentioned Condorcet and Borda. Strangely, it seems that the writers for REASON have some sort of mental block when it comes the Instant Runoff Voting (IRV) ranked voting system.
Here are some facts: (1) IRV literally throws legitimate votes away as part of the algorithm it uses; (2) aside from the fact that this should be treated as illegal, the throw-away algorithm can cause a nasty effect in which voting for one's 2nd choice can cause one's first choice to lose OR a candidate obtain more 1st choice votes can cause that candidate to lose. The feature described in #2 is technically called "non-monotonicity" - I call it by the more descriptive term, "ranked reversal paradox".
I was glad to see that Tom Cotton was one of the first people to categorically state that things like "exhausted ballots", by throwing votes away, disenfranchise voters. This is correct but Cotton doesn't understand that this happens at every step of the process until all of the transfers and discards have been made leaving the final two.
Many of the nasty features of IRV can be avoided by voters if they vote strategically. Yes, contrary to REASON commentators and other supporters of IRV, there is an optimal strategy for voters: bullet vote. That means ONLY RANK YOUR FAVORITE. This avoids the person voting from ever personally contributing to the ranked reversal paradox. There is ALWAYS the possibility that ranked a second or third choice will cause your first choice to lose. The FairVote people say exactly the opposite - they lie (or are grotesquely ignorant).
I discuss all of the above issues in my YouTube video. Search for my 30 minute talk, Paul Hager "Count Every Vote".
Then why did half of the first-choice voters for the 2nd Republican choose Peltola as their 2nd choice? Hardly subverted - they weren't voting along party lines, but for candidates.
Unfortunately elections are not party affairs in the US, they are individual affairs. While it seems obvious that the state prefers the Republican party, or Republican candidates overall, what isn't obvious is that the state preferred A republican over Peltola.
How you know you're a partisan hack...
No, they didn't 'want a republican', or a bunch of first-choice Republican voters wouldn't have voted Democrat for their 2nd choice. Party isn't the everything to all or even most voters. Just partisan hacks who think you have to swear allegiance to a team.
That isn't quite what happened here. I'm trying to read the numbers to make sure I understand them, but this is closer to what happened.
Salad got 36%
Pepperoni got 30.2
Cheese got 26.2
Vat-grown vegan vending-machine pizza (libertarian) got .6% of the vote.
After all the second choices were calculated, Salad ended up with 51% of the vote, with Pepperoni getting 49%.
I don't see anything in this election that suggests RCV ended in tragic results... and trust me, I'm no fan of RCV.
Those Cheese Pizza voters who chose Salad as their second pick *didn't want* pepperoni pizza and preferred salad to it. So no, 65% of people didn't want pizza, no matter what type of pizza it was.
Your conclusion is pants-on-head stupid.
In fact, I'm even willing to admit that my contention about RCV didn't even really come true here. I still hang on to my contention with RCV, because this is one election, one district and a relatively low-population state, but I'm always willing to admit that I am wrong.
Either that, or Alaska voters don't see the issues the way I presumed they do.
To be clear, I do get the point that Pizza got 56% of the vote, but the details and nuances are important here. Again, Alaskans weren't voting for pizza vs salad, they were voting on three distinct dishes. And unfortunately, the majority of people voted for Salad as their distinct choice. Those who didn't vote for salad as their primary choice, voted for Salad as their secondary choice if their distinct preferred dish (pepperoni) wasn't available. Meaning that the people who wanted pepperoni, preferred to get Salad insead of cheese. So don't make the mistake of algebra by putting the parentheticals around the wrong set of factors.
How do you not know who the candidates are in RCV?
The people were never given a choice between Peltola and "a Republican". They were given a choice between Peltola, Palin and Begich - specific Republicans. While, in aggregate, Alaskans preferred one of the Republicans, when it came to specifics, they preferred neither Palin nor Begich.
You may think that bloc/party voting is the defining factor in how people should vote. And I think lots of people agree with you. Not everyone, however. As the article above already says, 50% of the people who voted for Begich thought that it was more important to either pick Peltola (crossing party lines) or abstain than to blindly maintain party loyalty.
Talk about walking right into what I was talking about...
They didn't want 'a Republican' or 'a Democrat' - some voters wanted Palin, some voters wanted Peltola, and some voters wanted Begich. To simplify that to party is to ignore what voters actually did.
Peltola got a plurality of the first vote. Palin and Begich split ~60%.
Without RCV, that goes to a run-off between Peltola and Palin. The Begich voters will choose one of those two (or just not vote). They aren't compelled to choose Palin because of the (R), and in fact, the RCV results tell us they *wouldn't*.
RCV simply let's them make that second choice at the same time as their first choice. ~Half of Begich preferred Peltola to Palin. They didn't want an R - they wanted NOT PALIN.
It is debatable - just not with you. Your mistake (which has been pointed out several times already) is that in the US, we vote for people, not for parties.
You may consider that sub-optimal - and you might even be right. Nevertheless, lots of people disagree with you.
Sorry, my grammar was unclear. That should have been "Peltola and Palin OR Begich ...".
They wanted *anything but pepperoni pizza*. They didn't get pepperoni pizza. Mission accomplished.
If they wanted pepperoni pizza, they would have chosen it as their second choice instead of Salad. They DIDN'T.
Then why did they choose salad as their second choice instead of the other pizza? You're claiming they're too stupid to figure this out?
If you wanted pizza no matter what, you'd vote:
1. x pizza
2. y pizza
3. salad
But lots of people apparently DIDN'T vote that way. So you're 'obviously they wanted pizza' is obviously wrong.
On the contrary, they can foresee exactly how the tabulation will play out. And in this case, they did. Clearly, you value party loyalty above all. Just accept that a lot of the rest of us don't.
Can you stick to one talking point at a time?
If it removes relevant factors, what are they? How does it remove them? Be specific.
But you're responding to a thread where you said the people voted for an 'R' as first choice, so they clearly wanted *any* R. Either defend that, or admit that argument is wrong.
Again, that's not what happened here. People who wanted Pepperoni said "if I can't get Pepperoni, I'd rather have Salad than Cheese Pizza, because I hate cheese pizza".
You're ignoring that very important statistic in the voting results. You can't keep applying the desire to Pizza (type unspecified) as a singular choice. I like Pepperoni Pizza and Salad and I hate cheese pizza is what actually happened here.
wtf.
If a 3-way election, what are the possible run-offs? What isn't predictable here?
And to further the point... the majority DIDN'T vote for Pepperoni as your analogy suggested, the majority voted for Salad:
First round:
Mary Peltola
70,048 votes 36.8%
Sarah Palin
57,486 votes 30.2%
Nick Begich
49,833 votes 26.2%
Tara Sweeney
7,142 votes 3.8%
Chris Bye
1,182 votes 0.6%
Second round:
Mary Peltola
91,206 votes 51.5%
Sarah Palin
85,987 votes 48.5%
uh, that's mathematically impossible, given Begich was eliminated and she wasn't.
It's also a blatant lie. Here in reality, Peltola won the first round plurality, which split 40 (Peltola) - 31 (Palin) - 29 (Begich). Then ~12% of Begich voters preferred Peltola to Palin, giving her ~52% and the win. (It's actually 51.5%).
American elections don't work that way. Seats are not allocated by party, seats are allocated by victorious candidate.
And there's a way to vote like that, if they want.
You can't just ignore when they don't vote that way, and pretend they wanted to.
In a 3-way election, there's only 3 possible 'runoff' outcomes. A v B, B v C, A v C. They don't need to know how the future plays out. They can think about each paired choice, and rank accordingly.
People are absolutely smart enough to do that, they do it all the time. My 6-year-old nephew understands how relative preferences work.
Also, RCV solves the only real future prediction issue with elections.
If my top preference is anyone besides candidate X, well now i need to know the future to know who other voters will choose that can beat candidate X (if anyone), or my vote is wasted. With RCV, I just rank X last, and if someone can beat X, I'm guaranteed to get not X. (X could still win, because other people don't share my anti-preference).
How do you know that? Their votes say otherwise.
What you're really saying is: you can't fathom someone having the preference Cheese Pizza > Salad > Pepperoni Pizza, so therefore those votes are illegitimate. Your lack of imagination does not constrain the people actually voting.
That doesn't actually change anything. Every possible runoff is still imaginable. And if there's so many candidates you can't imagine every runoff, then you couldn't consider all the candidates anyway, so you can reduce it to the number of candidates you'd bother to consider at all, because that'll be no different than a regular election for you.
Already said but copying here in case others don't read every sub-thread.
That's from a June 11th election, not the Aug 16 election that's the topic of discussion in this article.
Sorry for trusting the media to report numbers correctly. I still don't see an issue.
And apparently, you just don't understand how ranked choice voting actually works.
Tell me, in a non-RCV world, how many of those candidates would have gotten as many votes as they did? People cast ballots for outsider candidates because they knew they could put a real vote on their ballot as a second or third preference and it would be counted. You can't just imagine votes would look like that without RCV, because people's behavior changed because of RCV.
You realize that RCV solves the 'if you vote 3rd party, you're giving the election away to Biden/etc..' nonsense, right? Wasn't that the former complaint, that people voting 3rd party were throwing the vote to the other party?
Is there a reason you linked to a June 11th election results listing when talking about the results of an election that actually took place on August 16th?
The correct link to the official election results is http://www.elections.alaska.gov/results/22SSPG/RcvDetailedReport.pdf.
Who cares, i can imagine N1 v N2, N1 v N3... N1 v Nn, N2 v N3, ... ... just fine. If Nn is too many, i couldn't consider all the candidates *in the first place*.
People do relative preference for long lists of things all the time. RCV is just like having actual runoffs, they just happen immediately instead of needing to vote again.
Already said but copying here in case others don't read every sub-thread.
That's from a June 11th election, not the Aug 16 election that's the topic of discussion in this article.
Those aren't the General Election results the link is for the Primary Election.
And RCV is a choice. A series of choices. X, if not X then Y, if not Y then Z, ... It's hardly inchoate nor requires elaborate counterfactuals. I deal with ranked choices every time i go to the grocery store or Panda Express.
You're just butthurt that a majority of Alaskans would rather have *anyone else* instead of Sarah Palin.
No, you're just incredulous people can have that preference.
NOT PALIN feels like a valid preference to me.
In some countries the size of the USA there are no political platforms--even with 32 subsidized looter parties! Brazil alternates between simple-minded socialists and angry superstitious nationalsocialists with never a clue as to what specific fascist or communist policies are being pushed. Allegiance to minimizing coercion works for me. But the platform has to make sense.
Sorry you lost me. What contenders were there that no one knew about?
Are you referring to a nomination process? Does Alaska have something like that? I wasn't aware there was a smoky back room where power brokers decided who could run and who could not. If there was, I'm surprised the AK GOP allowed two competing Republicans on the ballot.
And, yes, Peltola did win the first-round plurality on Aug 16th.
But no, I don't know what the Jun 11th election was for.
In case anyone missed it above, no, that's from a June 11th election, not the Aug 16 election that's the topic of discussion in this article.
That was the primary.
I used the numbers linked in the articles for the August election. The one that decided this race. You appear to be using numbers from the initial primary that determines the top 4 vote getters. That's it. As you see from your PDF, there are a jillion names on it. Alaska does a non-partisan round to see who the top four candidates are to pare down the ballot, so there aren't 10,000 names on it. Once the top 4 vote getters are determined (Peltola was one of them, yes with only 10% of the vote), when they moved on to the regular primary, that's when she secured the majority of the vote.
So you've taken a related election within this process, and are using it to determine what should be the final result. If you contend that all following election results were invalid, regardless of RCV, then contend that. But this initial non-partisan round has almost nothing to do with what we're talking about.
We just had grocery shortages in various degrees for ~2 years. I frequently did have grocery lists that looked like 'X. If no X, then Y. If no Y, then Z'.
Also, the Panda Express near me inconsistently has the healthier choices. So when I'm picking it up for my wife and I, her 'choice' is a ranked preference list, so i don't need to spend 5 minutes texting with her while in the drive thru.
In both cases, I don't know the decisions of others materially relevant to availability (suppliers, other customers, etc...) until I'm there and see what's available. And i'm not the only one whose 'vote' matters - ranked preferences avoids lengthy back-and-forths while i'm trying to just get food and get home.
It is in all ways equivalent to ranked preference voting. My ranked preferences of candidates DOES NOT CHANGE (and should not change) based on how other people vote, because I can list all my preferences in order.
I frequently did have grocery lists that looked like 'X. If no X, then Y. If no Y, then Z'.
Except elections don't work that way.
In a normal election that might have a run off, you vote for your first preference. If no one wins outright and it goes to a run-off you get to see what happened. Did the vote get split? Did the other guy have a stronger showing?
Youi get to see what happened an can make an informed choice based on having all the data.
In an RCV contest, you are asked to assume that a runoff could happen but are given no information as to why it happened. So you have to guess. Often multiple times.
And that simple 'if not X, then Y' works on levels, it's not the same each time so in 'X. If no X, then Y. If no Y, then Z' , Z might be gone before it ever gets to Z or it might preclude X before it ever gets to Y. And you will have voted three or more times blind.
And that blindness is the point of this.
Oh, good, i'm not crazy. GG can't even get which election we're talking about right...
According to Alaska Public Media, the Jun 11th election was a traditional 'primary' - the top 4 advanced to the Aug 16th RCV election.
Except RCV is not 'not a Toyota' dealership, it's 'we'll go to every other dealership first' == not a toyota dealership as a preference.
RCV also allows you to specify the order you want to go to those dealerships to see who actually has a car you want in stock.
The June 11 election was no more a "direct face off between Palin and Peltola" than the 'first-round' count of the Aug 16th election was. In both cases, it was an election across multiple candidates.
Al Gross was the third-place candidate in the June 11 election. He decided to drop out of the race 9 days later and threw his support behind the "two Native women candidates" - Tara Sweeney (R) and Peltola (D). Looking at his numbers and at the round-one results of the Aug 16 election, it looks like pretty much all of his supporters picked Peltola as their next-best choice.
The really odd thing is that, contrary to your claims, ranked-choice voting requires no complicated guessing about hypotheticals but traditional voting requires quite a lot of it. In ranked choice voting, it's
- "who do I like best" - they go to the top of my list
- "who do I despise most" - they go to the bottom
- fit everyone else in based on my preferences.
I never need to think about how you will vote.
In conventional voting, on the other hand, I really want candidate C but he's a long shot and if I don't vote for A (my distant-second choice) to offset your vote for B, then I might get stuck with B (who I really hate) when it was avoidable. Conventional voting requires far more guessing about unknowable scenarios.
That contention is simple. It is also almost certainly wrong. Pre-election polling put Peltola ahead of Palin (according to a USA Today article that I still have lying around). Being a simple poll, ranked-choice voting had nothing to do with it.
Personally, I liked Palin and thought she was a competent administrator (or at least no more incompetent than the vast majority of other politicians) but she was deeply unpopular with a large segment of her own constituency.
And, like Hillary, that led to her defeat. A significant block chose to cross party lines or abstain rather than vote for her.
I understand that level of independence is deeply threatening to party leadership and party loyalists. But for those of us who think that the person is more important than the party, this is good.
If you split your own base but one of your candidates attracts independents, while the other alienates them, when you nominate the alienating one, you're more likely to lose the election than if you can have RVC and the two candidates.
I'm not going to dive into the numbers but from what I've seen this really is looking like the worst possible case of RCV voting; where neither the Condorcet optimal or straight most popular candidate won and we actually got not the most preferred candidate, but the most preferred candidate among losingest voters.
And that's really fucked up.
The June election wasn't a direct face off. It was an election with dozens of choices. Those voters of the dozens of candidates that were eliminated now need to make a choice of the few remaining ones. More of those wanted Peltola than Palin.