Ranked Choice Voting Worked in Alaska. Sarah Palin Came to CPAC To Complain About It.
According to a recent report, the system Palin once said was "so weird" that it "results in voter suppression" worked just as well as intended.

Attendants of this year's Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) heard many topics of contention raised, like transgender rights or tech companies. And also, oddly enough, Alaska's U.S. House race.
In 2020, Alaskan voters approved a new electoral process in which every candidate of any party runs in the same primary, and the four with the most votes advance to the general election. On that ballot, voters rank the candidates in order of preference; if no candidate gets a majority, the lowest performer is eliminated, and their ballots are recounted with the second choices counted first, and so on until one candidate receives a majority. This process is called ranked choice voting (RCV).
After the March 2022 death of Rep. Don Young (R–Alaska), the state held a special election to fill his seat. Sarah Palin, the state's erstwhile Republican governor, was one of more than four dozen candidates competing for the seat. Despite getting a comfortable plurality of the first round's votes, she ultimately lost to Democrat Mary Peltola once all second- and third-choices were counted. The same dynamic played out again for the November general election and Peltola won reelection to a full term.
Last week, Palin traveled to the greater D.C. area to attend CPAC—not as an invited speaker but to inveigh against the voting system she blames for her loss.
Two booths dotted CPAC's event space, one for StopRCV.com, an anti-ranked choice organization, and another from a group calling itself "Alaskans for Honest Elections," dedicated to repealing the 2020 ballot measure. Art Mathias, the latter group's leader, told Insider that Palin was its national spokesperson.
Mathias further said that the system caused intra-party conflict between Palin and fellow Republican candidate Nick Begich III, and that under a traditional electoral system, Palin "would have easily won." At last year's CPAC Texas, Palin herself told the crowd about ranked choice, "It's bizarre, it's convoluted, it's confusing and it results in voter suppression," explaining that "it results in a lack of voter enthusiasm because it's so weird."
Earlier this year, Ryan Williamson, a resident fellow at the R Street Institute, a free market and limited government think tank, published a report evaluating how Alaska's electoral system performed in 2022. Despite Palin's and Mathias's scaremongering, Williamson's report found that "races in the state became more civil and competitive overall," and "despite it being a major change in process, the top-four approach caused little disruption in the composition of government."
Proponents of ranked choice voting say that it leads to more representative government, as one candidate in a crowded field can't win without eventually receiving majority support, and that it lowers the incentives to run negative campaigns. Palin's race against Peltola is a perfect example, as Williamson wrote that "Peltola ran a highly
localized, Alaska-centric campaign tied to issues like fishing, whereas her main challenger, Sarah Palin, appealed to voters through more populist, culture-war-centric issues."
Across the state, 2022 also saw more competitive races, with fewer candidates running unopposed and more candidates who won by narrow margins.
Ranked choice voting is not a panacea to the two-party system: In 2022, 90 percent of Alaskan incumbents retained their seats, only slightly below the national rate of 94 percent. But if the goal in electing a representative is to pick someone who best, you know, represents the whole of their constituency, ranked choice provides an opportunity to do just that.
"RCV leads to less divisiveness, not more," Williamson told Reason. "The new system forced candidates to appeal to a broader range of voters in order to win. That's something Peltola did well that Palin did not.
"Palin probably would have won a closed primary, but that does not mean she would have won the general. If Palin were supported by a majority of voters, then she would have won—just like the Republicans who won in the US Senate, the governorship, and a majority of both chambers of the state legislature."
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
Taking a month to name a winner is how it is SUPPOSED to work?
My, that seems like a great idea to build trust in a system.
The party with 40% of the votes winning the seat. Totes working as intended.
Giving some voters multiple votes while others get a single vote? Totes working as intended.
Murkowski won without any party support. McConnell spent millions trashing the republican candidate.
Lenny Pike explains rank choice voting.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j-7pVks8avo
Absolutely working as designed. You'll never see an election where the more conservative or Republican candidate wins in a ranked choice election.
Like California's jungle primary which gives you a choice of which Democrat you want in office.
I like how it's become completely normalized for elections in this country to not be decided for days, weeks and sometimes months after the election is completed.
There have always been elections that where it takes weeks to get the final results.
Frivolous lawsuits don't help.
As I explain farther down, IRV will actually make delays MUCH WORSE.
We know it works because it keeps incumbents in office.
We can’t have people who don’t trust government getting into office.
"Leftist/establishment candidate won, thus the system works and criticism equals treason"
-Reason
Typical Republican these days. If you lost an election, it's not because you ran a shit campaign or because you espoused shit positions, the only possible reason must be because the system is somehow fixed against you. Given the degenerate state of the Donkey Party, it really shouldn't be difficult to offer a more appealing alternative. Yet the GOP continues to fail.
Depends on the race. Most of the races in the recent midterms were decided correctly. A few weren’t. Arizona clearly has major problems with their elections.
Most of that "taking a month" was waiting for absentee ballots to come in - and that time would have been identical regardless of the vote-counting system used.
Actually it wasn't, lying fuck hole. It doesn't take a month to deliver first class mail parcels. Anywhere in the country.
You have to filter out the “bad” votes.
Absentee ballots ≠ mail in ballots
Shouldn’t they take as long as is needed to get the count correct?
The only people who are going to lose confidence in the system because of a wait to get the final results are people who are predisposed to finding reasons not to have confidence in the system.
I think that’s highly dependent on how many times it takes more than a few days to tally the votes and the apparent loser “actually” coming out on top.
"The only people who are going to lose confidence in the system because of a wait to get the final results are people who are predisposed to finding reasons not to have confidence in the system."
Even if this were true an electoral system is supposed not only to be reliable but to reassure the people on its reliability, including the part of the population who don't know the inner working of the system and are wary of it.
Got to have time for post Election Day ballot fortification.
Let's see, a tiny population spread over an absolutely huge area, where it often takes time just to get the ballots to where they're counted. Yeah, taking a little time is so suspicious.
Ranked choice voting seems to be a scam to ensure that only Democrats are elected.
Certainly in California and now Alaska that seems to be the result.
I have to say it seems an especially confusing system.
Open primaries are obviously awful.
If You are allowed to vote in the opposite parties primary, you would of course vote for the worst candidate who is least likely to be elected.
No, Joe, ranked-choice voting did not work in Alaska. The lesson to be learned here is that only one candidate from each party should be on the ballot so as not to split the vote as happened here (1 Democrat versus 2 Republicans).
I don’t doubt that it worked. The question is, for whom? It obviously worked for the Democrats. The voters, not so much.
Well said.
Just get rid of the democrats. Ship them out of the country one way. And those that refuse to leave, well, this country has hundreds of fine landfills.
Don’t be a fed-boi.
A what?
And that's pretty much how it will always go. The Democrats will always fall in line while the Republicans will be split between the establishment and populist.
Splitting the vote is what happens _without_ ranked-choice (see Ralph Nader in 2000). Nothing stopped voters from ranking Begich first and Palin second, if they had wanted to. It's Palin's fault for making them want to rank her behind Peltola.
I’m using an online business opportunity I heard about and I’ve made such great money. It’s really user friendly and I’m just so happy that I found out about it. Here’s what I do.
…
For more details visit————————➤ https://v2links.in/zUGzmAJ
The dnc learned their lesson and sued to get the green party kicked off of the ballot in Wisconsin, pen, and a few other key states. Democracy!
I say this elsewhere. Palin was correct. Because of IRV's non-monotonicity problem, the correct strategy is to bullet vote. She likely didn't understand WHY this was the correct strategy but it is. Find the link to my FB where I compare IRV and Condorcet's ranked systems.
That sounds right. Nader in 2000 is a good example. No Bush, possibly no Iraq invasion in '03. Ranked choice also eliminates "run off" elections since the info is already available to make the decision, the "run off" is built into the system. It is a little tough to understand but it is a better method. It also sounds like it would weaken the 2 party system we have which is definitely a plus.
Primaries should return to being primaries. Private selection process for the parties themselves to choose their nominee. Parties can put forth a slate, and individuals can still enter the race without party backing if they so choose. And no one gets a letter after their name.
Amen
Tell me you don't understand RCV without telling me you don't understand RCV.
It doesn't matter that there were 2 republicans and 1 democrat. Under RCV, if people were really voting by party, all the lesser republican's voters would have chosen the other republican as their next choice. Thus, if there were more total republican votes, a republican would have won.
But people *didn't vote by party*. They chose one republican first, and then *the democrat* as their next choice. I know this is hard to fathom, but just maybe Palin is an electoral turd and was never going to win that election.
It kept a polarizing candidate out, I can live with that. And if a party doesn't want to split their votes then they should only have one candidate in the race.
RCV has the chance to de-polarize our elections, making candidates be a consensus choice, rather that just not evil like the other candidate.
Polarizing Palin would have lost under any voting system, including FPTP. RCV didn't do anything special.
No, RCV doesn't de-polarize. It suffers from the center-squeeze effect and is biased in FAVOR of polarizing candidates, and against consensus candidates. You need to research this more.
Palin is a turd and would lose under any voting system, but you don't understand RCV either.
It absolutely does matter that there were 2 Republicans and 1 Democrat. If Palin had dropped out of the special election, Begich would have won. The two Republicans split the Republican vote with each other, causing Begich to be eliminated first, but a majority of voters actually ranked Begich higher than Peltola on their ballots, so he would have won if not for Palin acting as a spoiler.
RCV is just another shit-tier voting system that suffers from the spoiler effect and vote-splitting because it only counts your first ranking in each round. It makes no sense that so many people think it's a reform that will actually fix anything. There are much better voting systems, including ranked ballot ones, that should be adopted instead.
From the data, that’s not clear. In fact, many people didn’t put down a second choice.
I don't like primaries - they are a product of the Progressives. In my view, parties should chose their candidates by CONVENTION. I want to then see lots of parties on the final ballot. The only system that will allow the true winner to emerge is Condorcet's system. Since it is a single-seat, majoritarian system and it, unlike IRV, actually eliminates split voting, we might will develop a semi-stable multi-party system. This would be an evolutionary process so I expect it would take several election cycles for things to clarify.
Political parties don't run for office, people do. Cementing in the 2 party system only exacerbates our current problems. The parties are free to get their shit together and pick 1 candidate.
The parties can’t exclude candidates.
No, splitting the vote doesn't matter in Ranked Choice Voting (aka Preferential Voting). If you split the vote after one of the candidates that split the vote is eliminated the people who would have voted for the other effectively do. It's only people who would have voted for a third candidate if the eliminated candidate hadn't run that effectively vote for that third candidate.
Seriously, a big ol' "Up yours!" to you and all the other TEAM players. Ranked choice actually reduces the chance of ballot splitting. If a real majority had wanted a Rep, any Rep, to win, then a majority would have listed one Rep or another as their first and second choice, and said Rep would have won. Once again, you live up to your handle.
"It's bizarre, it's convoluted, it's confusing and it results in voter suppression," explaining that "it results in a lack of voter enthusiasm because it's so weird."
Based on my calculations using the metrics previously relied upon by almost every media organization who's inveighed on "voter suppression", Sarah Palin is on firm logical ground.
Great. Please show your work.
Please fuck off.
That which makes it more difficult to vote for any voter amounts to voter suppression.
See: 2000 election
See: Voter ID
See: Poll hours
See... on and on, and on.
Now suddenly we have this RCV system which, even by the brighter minds in the comment section poses some interesting results based on how you choose to use or not use it, with possible unexpected results (for the voter) if they chose not to make a second or third choice (see my article linked etc). So, the system we used to have: your single vote goes into the tally and whomever gets the most wins, to a series of calculated pre-runoffs via a first, second, third... you get the idea.
By every reasonable metric, it's more difficult than the previous system. It may be simple enough for a high school graduate, it may be simple enough for a third grader to figure out, but if one iota of complication is injected into the system, it is, according to our friends in the Establishment Media: voter suppression.
Sarah Palin's logic is even backed up by SCIENCE!
So, you didn’t actually do any calculations.
We seem to be talking about two policies here. There’s ranked-choice voting combined with an “open” primary.
This doesn’t improve chances for third parties, it simply postpones some intra-major-party rivalries from the primaries into the general.
It sure sounds nice to be for “open” rather than “closed,” but this “open” stuff is just a symptom of the incestuous relationship between the government and the Big Two parties.
The government uses primary laws to regulate the internal operations of the two major parties, and the Big Two don’t object in principle because they *want* a system where the two governing parties blur with the government, just as the one major party blurred with the government in the old Soviet Union.
As for ranked-choice voting, separately considered (i. e., not linked to an “open” primary), it’s like the death penalty – I support it philosophically but have my doubts about the government’s ability to carry it out properly in practice.
As for ranked-choice voting, separately considered (i. e., not linked to an “open” primary), it’s like the death penalty – I support it philosophically but have my doubts about the government’s ability to carry it out properly in practice.
As someone not rigidly opposed to the death penalty, IRV-RCV is like avoiding imposing the death penalty unfairly by locking more people in cages for life. There is a way to know who the most popular candidate is/was transparently and without the system imposing judgement, IRV specifically does not do that.
As long as it took them to figure out the winner, they could have skipped the "I" in IRV, and just held a runoff election.
Unless, of course, you're talking about the source code for voting machines.
Open primaries are a direct attack against the concept of freedom of association.
m.e.h.
WHAT DOES THAT STAND FOR?!!
Simpsons
https://www.google.com/search?q=lisa%20simpson%20meh%20site%3Ayoutube.com&rlz=1C1GCEU_enUS960US960&oq=youtube&aqs=chrome.0.0i271j46i131i199i433i465i512j0i433i512j0i131i433i512j0i433i512l2j0i131i433i512j5.1016j0j7&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8&ved=2ahUKEwj7_enTsMr9AhWRnGoFHZbbBrwQ2wF6BAgOEAE&ei=SnkHZPuwBJG5qtsPlreb4As#fpstate=ive&vld=cid:6adcde13,vid:LjJYYaeFNmQ
DMY, dude!
I know what that means, young lady.
Yes. Really ugly sunglasses.
Proponents of ranked choice voting say that it leads to more representative government, as one candidate in a crowded field can't win without eventually receiving majority support, and that it lowers the incentives to run negative campaigns. Palin's race against Peltola is a perfect example, as Williamson wrote that "Peltola ran a highly
localized, Alaska-centric campaign tied to issues like fishing, whereas her main challenger, Sarah Palin, appealed to voters through more populist, culture-war-centric issues."
Try not to take activists' word for RCV.
Here's a non-partisan critique of RCV:
Personally, I remain "neutral to skeptical" on RCV, because the critique I posted above is kind of how I see things working out. Plus, we're taking a relatively simple system (arguably flawed) and introducing clever complications into it in the hopes that we'll improve our democracy. I'm skeptical that it will achieve anything of the sort.
RCV allows more manipulation, and is pushed by the most corrupt or foolish people out there.
Skepticism level: high.
How does it allow manipulation? And what's more corrupt than a system that is guaranteed to encourage suppression of third parties?
That’s good because it meant that Maine stopped using our ubiquitous choose-one voting method—largely regarded as the worst single-winner voting method there is.
I asked my North Korean friend if he thought the single-winner voting system was really that bad. He said he couldn't complain.
But seriously, I think that is more where libertarianism needs to be at. OMOV, single-winner systems aren't the best, but they're so easy that nearly toddlers can figure them out and implement them. If you're at the point in your libertarian moment when RCV is your top-tier, No. 1 cause, nobody should be paying taxes involuntarily for anything anywhere.
>>RCV is your top-tier, No. 1 cause
Lancaster's holy grail judging by volume of articles.
Despite getting a comfortable plurality of the first round’s votes, she ultimately lost to Democrat Mary Peltola once all second- and third-choices were counted.
I’m sort of focused on other things this morning, so I’m not running all the mathematical game theory in my head here, but what this sounds like is:
“Could everyone who voted for Sarah Palin as their first choice step into the room”
*standing room only*
*clears room*
“Ok, could everyone who voted for Mary Pelota as their second or third choice please step into the room”
*people seated comfortably with a few empty seats*
*clears room*
“Ok, could everyone who voted for Sarah Palin as their second or third choice step into the room”
*mostly empty*
“Mary Pelota wins!”
That isn't an accurate description. It wasn't "standing room only" for Palin supporters. It wasn't even half of the people in the room. The fact is that Begich supporters were a large enough contingent to put Palin or Peltola into the "standing room only" position, and those people did not support Palin.
I am ambivalent on the voting schemes states choose. As long as they can be done quickly, and people understand the rules of the game beforehand, I'm generally ok with people taking up the choice they want. That is why I roll my eyes when people complain about the Electoral College, and I am skeptical of all the bellyaching about Palin.
Right, wrong or indifferent, Palin has always been a flawed candidate since her run with McCain, and that has been especially been true in Alaska where the politics are parochial and eccentric. But one thing is clear: An idiot goes into an RCV vote trying to alienate supporters of their candidates. Palin did that. She pissed on Begich over and over, likely because many of the GOP populists have found success doing so in the differently-counted primaries of other states. But that was a strategic mistake. She fucked around and found out what happens when you piss off half the people in your tribe.
Again, I don't really have a horse in this race, but Palin erred strategically despite knowing how this vote worked. She knew that if she couldn't get a majority on her first vote, it would be about how those other people felt about her. And by the way, it is a message that probably a lot of republicans better internalize. I think the never-trumpers are dumb. But they have their supporters in the party and they vote. A candidate isn't going to win unless they peel off a good amount of those people as well.
It wasn’t even half of the people in the room.
A crystalline example of the gross stupidity of RCV-IRV.
First, learn to read. All the voters are outside the room only the people in the room are voting for the candidates.
Second, if you believed in RCV-IRV and understood it, your point would be moot. First round totals are rather moot for everyone except the lowest candidate.
Third, if you actually gave a shit about RCV-IRV and finding the actual truth, you’d recognize that without the “Could everyone who voted for Mark Begich as their nth choice step into the room?” questions you can’t actually determine a winner.
Fourth, given all of the above, it would be obvious that RCV-IRV offers false options to voters that it then collapses back down to emulate the flaws of WTA/FPTP. We don’t get to find out how many Palin voters voted for Begich because, if we did, we might discover that we actually elected an unpopular candidate just because we said, up/front methodically, “Palin and Peltola voters who selected Begich as their second choice don’t count.” or, arguably worse, recognize that the voters preferred Palin *or* Begich over Peltola.
Yawn. I understand the system quite well. It doesn't give "false choices" any more than every other voting system that doesn't allow you to just vote for any person in the world.
It is a fact that Palin knew exactly how this counting would work. It is a fact that despite knowing this, she embarked on a strategy that included pissing off enough people who she needed to win that...she didn't win.
Trying to pin this on the voting mechanism is sour grapes.
It doesn’t give “false choices” any more than every other voting system that doesn’t allow you to just vote for any person in the world.
Plainly incorrect. Whether I vote for Trump or Clinton, they're both options. Whether I vote for a loser or not, my vote was still counted. With RCV if whether I vote for [Trump, Johnson] or [Clinton, Johnson] the [*, Johnson] votes literally don't get counted. It's literally and quintessentially a false option.
Trying to pin this on the voting mechanism is sour grapes.
I didn't pin Palin's loss on the voting system and that's, in fact, the opposite of my point, without the gamesmanship of IRV, Begich would've won.
My point was that when people talk about others who are too stupid to understand RCV, the presumption is that they're talking about drooling morons who have trouble writing their own name, in fact they're talking about you.
Of course, given your interpretation of the phrase "Everyone who approves of X, *step into* the room.", that's more of a hop than a leap.
RCV is a big favorite of neocons now, which should tell you all you need to know about its real-world merits.
as one candidate in a crowded field can’t win without eventually receiving majority support,
RCV never requires majority support as some people vote for a single candidate, their votes are simply removed from the voting count. It is a stupid assertion made by those defending RCV.
I think the article alludes to what you say when it talks about people not physically showing up for a traditional runoff. They vote for Sarah Palin, then they have a run-off election a few weeks later and a bunch of voters just say, "Meh, too far" and stay in watching Netflix.
Yeah. Voter motivation is a huge factor which RCV removes. One of the reasons people vote is motivation. By removing this from the equation it biases it to generally uninformed and ignorant voters. Democrats love that though.
"RCV never requires majority support as some people vote for a single candidate, their votes are simply removed from the voting count. "
Which means it requires the majority of the people who bothered to vote their 2nd, 3rd, or 25th preferences. If you don't care who gets elected if your guy doesn't. you disenfranchised yourself.
This is an excellent post, though Instant Runoff Voting (IRV), the system that is actually being used is actually worse. On my FB, I have a 30 minute video that shows in detail how IRV actually works (or fails to work) in comparison with Condorcet's ranked choice voting system which actually does. Here's the link: https://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100077207396200
Below that I have a couple of posts. Probably the most important was a tally of the actual votes cast, as recorded by Alaska's Department of Elections. When ALL votes are counted, the WINNER IS BEGICH! Begich is, in the parlance of Social Choice Theory (voting science), the CONDORCET WINNER.
I don't understand why anyone at Reason.com is pushing IRV. There has obviously been zero effort to understand what is going on - and, as I show in the video, the math is very simple.
The "exhaustion" issue, aside from not solving the split-vote problem and causing the real winner to lose, can also produce the insidious problem I call the "rank-reversal problem" (technical term is "non-monotonicity"). This is where adding a lower ranking on one's ballot can cause a higher ranking to lose. Correct strategic voting if one is faced with an IRV ballot is to BULLET VOTE - only rank your top preference and leave the rest blank.
I have yet to see any article in the past several years discussing IRV (aka "RCV) where the writer gets anything correct. This is appalling.
So you want to exchange a straightforward method of determining the winner, which still manages to get hacked as often as not, for a more complex, arcane method with even more opportunities for chicanery?
Yeah. That'll end well.
"exchange a straightforward method... for a more complex, arcane method with even more opportunities for chicanery"
For Joe Lancaster that's the feature, not a bug.
It's pretty obvious at this point that his job consists of just copypasting Party narratives, and not writing libertarian takes on relevant events.
Take a look at his picture. Libertarian, my ass. I've never seen that look of entitled resentment on the face of anyone but a progtard.
It's not that complex. You list the candidates in the order you think they should win.
I don't know where you think there are more opportunities for chicanery. In any case the problem isn't the voting system, it's the complete absence of competence and honesty in US politics.
What I don't like is states running party primaries, and automatic ballot access for major parties. How about the parties pick their candidates in their own process without making everyone else pay for it? Then anyone who wants to be on the ballot needs to get some number of signatures or something like that. Party shouldn't even be a consideration in how candidates earn a place on the ballot.
That would be a sensible way to do it; the way almost all other democracies like Canada, Australia, Britain, France, etc. work. Only in the U.S. do you have weird systems like open primaries so that your opponents can chose your least electable candidate, or top two primaries so that only one party's candidates are on the ballot (like in Russia).
Yes. Let's go to a parliamentary system. Like all those other democracies.
It worked in the sense that an outcome happened, but by this shitty metric, dictatorships work.
It's pretty meaningless to say something worked if you don't define what failure would look like. It's like when people say that some welfare program worked and the evidence for it working is that a bunch of money got handed out.
I think the article does a pretty good job of implying what failure would have looked like: Palin would have been handily elected.
No - in my post, I point to the analysis of the actual ballots cast to show that the winner would have been Begich, not Palin.
No it would not have as you do not prove people would have been motivated to go to a run off as there is no condition of voter motivation. It is an implied assumption with no merit.
Just wish you RCV hacks would admit your biases and assumptions.
You've got this backwards and oversimplified. The method of tabulation shouldn't and doesn't require any more or less motivation on the part of the voters. Unless you're specifically requiring subsequent rounds of voting as an obstruction to voting. A technique which does the individual(s) no favors. How many times a year, month, or week would you show up at the polls to vote against Joe Biden? How many times a year, month, or week do you think your average voter would? How many times a year, month, or week (or day or hour or minute) do you think your average retarded prog zealot would?
I earn $100 per hour while taking risks and travelling to remote parts of the world. I worked remotely last week while in Rome, Monte Carlo, and eventually Paris. I’m back in the USA this week. I only perform simple activities from this one excellent website. see it,
Click Here to Copy……>>>> https://www.join.hiring9.com
Define "worked"
The candidate most people would have voted for in a 2 horse race won, without having to force it to be a 2 horse race. That's what RCV is supposed to do.
That’s what RCV is supposed to do.
I commend you on the false portrayal that what is actually a three horse race as a two horse race.
Tell me again how it obviates the TPD, favors third party candidates, the will of the electorate.
You guys are convincing me that the stupid people who don’t understand RCV aren’t as bad a problem as the intentionally and even maliciously stupid people who advocate for it.
By all means, continue to demonstrate your support for RCV and your disdain for the will of the electorate.
If the democrats are in favor then you can be certain that it doesn't work. It greatly favors establishment politicians.
No it actually does. It greatly favors third parties, although given that getting on the ballot as a 3rd party candidate appears harder than leading a successful armed revolution that won't make as big a difference as it could.
I hear democrats are quite in favor of breathing.
So it's basically like California's failed Top Two system, except it's Top Four, with an instant runoff in the general. Better than California in the same way a kick to the shin is better than a kick to the groin.
California is the epitome of a failed system. The libs/dems have complete control and are destined to stay in power lest there be an actual revolt.
The closest we have to that is the various proposals to divide the state. And while the first attempts in the last fifty years were laughable, the latest ones went much further. At some point, it could happen. Just based on size alone.
You have to understand the great divide that exists here. It's massive. You know how Californians love to brag about being able to ski in the morning and surf in the evening (a lie if there ever was one due to transportation logistics)? Well, I can go to my local coffee shop in the Bay Area in the morning and listen to all the woke folks prattle on about how we need to go even further left than we are. I can then drive an hour plus out to the farm country in the Central Valley, hit another coffee shop and listen to farmers who want to kill, literally all the city woke folks because of water issues. They'll happily tell you, it's "their water" and the governor is just wasting it.
The divide is massive. And the threats from the rural folks aren't just idle threats. I have some in my family.
If a voter can't work out how to vote using RCV, he's too stupid to be allowed to vote. At least, I've come across arguments here using the same logic wrt voter IDs, etc - from the right.
RCV does not favour Democrats or Libertarians or Republicans. It does favour less divisive candidates and gets closer to mirroring the wishes of the electorate than FPTP.
If a voter can’t work out how to vote using RCV, he’s too stupid to be allowed to vote.
Well, we're back in agreement on voter ID I'm happy to say.
If voters can't make it to the polls, except in extreme cases, they are too stupid to vote.
If voters can't figure out how to get a government ID, they're to stupid to vote.
I could keep on going but I doubt you'll agree with any of them. Just as long as those icky republicans don't win it's all you care about.
Oh fuck off. All I am interested in is a voting system which most accurately reflects the wishes of the electorate. RCV does that better than FPTP. Further, pretty much every single Republican supporter here including you is opposed to RCV precisely because you wrongly think it favours Democrats - just because it favoured Democrats in this one election. But you're just too dishonest to admit it.
All I am interested in is a voting system which most accurately reflects the wishes of the electorate. RCV does that better than FPTP.
You know that riddle with two doors and two guards, one of whom lies and the other tells the truth? Well, you aren't interested in the voting system which most accurately reflects the wishes of the electorate. If you were, you wouldn't, by your own precepts, have presented the false dichotomy that followed it.
I don't care that it disfavored Republicans in this election. I care that
it(that's not fair to the voting system which makes no claims) you continue to make claims about the system that aren't supported in theory or practice. If Begich were the Libertarian candidate in AK, he was still the most broadly popular candidate according to the full will of the electorate. The only way you arrive at a different conclusion is if you systematically ignore the voter preferences you don't like.This is known, knowable, and demonstrable even across elections, but you continue to lie and deflect because you don't actually care about objectivity or the will of the electorate.
Wrong. As I and one other poster pointed out IRV (please don't call it RCV because IRV is the worst of several other RCVs - the mathematically best being Condorcet's) throws legitimate votes away. Not counting all the votes should be treated as illegal. As I also pointed out, the SMARTEST VOTER will bullet vote because of the rank reversal problem. Since IRV does NOT solve split vote, if there are two Republicans on the ballot and only one Democrat, it will favor the Democrat. The only solution here is to NOT listen to proponents of IRV (which I liken to a cult) but to do a little research - one doesn't need anything more than 6th or 7th grade math.
Blah blah Arrow's Theorem blah blah. The point is that RCV is still a better system for reflecting the wishes of the electorate than FPTP, which you well know.
Blah blah Arrow’s Theorem blah blah. The point is that RCV is still a better system for reflecting the wishes of the electorate than FPTP, which you well know.
^Tell me you're a stupid voter who doesn't understand how RCV works without telling me you're a stupid voter who doesn't understand how RCV works.
"We could acknowledge that votes are votes and know, based on that fact or assumption, who the most broadly popular candidate is. But RCV is a more complicated lie than FPTP, so we should just go with the more complicated lie." - SRG
The only people that say some voters are too stupid to get an id are racists democrats, such as shrike and Tony.
Note SRG’s phrasing in a “don’t say the quiet part out loud”/”say the out loud part loudly enough and hope people ignore the quite part” sense. He says people aren’t too stupid to understand “how to vote using rank-choice voting”, but that’s not the argument against rank-choice voting.
The argument is that the voting method asks people to provide their full, ranked preference of candidates and then proceeds to ignore a significant portion of those ranks, frequently, to the benefit of someone who is neither particularly popular nor particularly moderate (in opposition to the claims espoused by RCV advocates).
How many fingers, Winston?
Counting the ones the gynecologist had shoved up your ass?
(It’s ok, he was on his lunch hour)
#LibertariansForMoreTechnocraticPower
While IRV (the particular form of RCV used here) is better than FPTP, this is arguably an example of failure -- Begich "should have" won -- would have won in any one-to-one matchup (a "Condorcet winner"). Palin was a "spoiler" that threw it to Peltola, by eliminating Begich early.
It's not entirely clear what would have happened in a standard primary than election scenario. One possibility is the exact same thing: Palin knocking out Begich, and then losing to Peltola, because Palin was quite divisive. But it's also quite possible for her to have won. I do actually think that would have been a worse result. But IRV, like FPTP, is a chaos monkey in any close race. I strongly prefer approval or any Condorcet method instead.
In a real election Palin would have knocked out Begich, Murkowski would have gotten the boot, and Petola, who only got near the ballot because of leftist shenanigans, wouldn't even have made it out of the gat.
it out of the gat.
Gat control is a #1 issue for Democrats.
GATOR NEEDS HIS GAT
Ranked Pairs.
Correct on all points. Glad to see this. I was a big proponent of AV back in the late 90's because it is very easy to explain and use AND back then, the logistics/cost of switching to a ranked ballot would have been prohibitive. Now that we have IRV out there, it is very easy to adopt Condorcet's Instant Round Robin (IRR) system given that the ballots are identical. All that is needed for Alaska (and other adopters) of IRV to do is change the election law so that Condorcet's algorithm is used instead of IRV's discard algorithm. Easy peasy, as they say...
Simple arithmetic proves eventually, your vote for your candidate, that should have resulted in a run off election, means nothing.
I worked part-time from my apartment and earned $30,030. After losing my previous business, I quickly became exhausted. Fortunately, I discovered this jobs online, and as a result, I was able to start earning money from home right away. Anyone can accomplish this elite career and increase their internet income by….
After reading this article………………>>> http://www.jobsrevenue.com
Any system that takes several months to produce a result is not working.
Say there are four candidates, A, B, C, and D. I vote for them ranked C, B, D, and A last. C, D, and A make it past the first round. So what happens to my ballot? As my second choice was eliminated? Does it count in round three or does my third choice become my second choice or is my ballot completely eliminated?
Also, a percentage of a percentage, of a percentage rarely ever results in a majority of the original pool so, no it doesn't result in a majority winner, they're still a plurality winner.
You vote for C again as 1st choice in the 2nd round, as s/he was not eliminated.
What's bizarre is the preliminary ballot to eliminate all but the top 4. If you're going to do either instant-runoff or Condorcet type RCV, why can't you do it in one step?
Using Condorcet, there is no need to thin the field first. Since the Condorcet algorithm operates like a round-robin tournament compressed into a single round, it's pretty fast. In fact, for reasons that I explain in my video, it is inherently much faster than IRV. I think it is likely that in a 10 candidate scenario in which Condorcet is used for all of the ballots, which are tabulated by hand using pencil and paper and the IRV ballots are all tabulated by computers, the by-hand count will be faster. You see, Condorcet's algorithm would allow by-hand tabulation by precinct, then those vote totals cold be quickly added in a view minutes at the district level and so on. IRV's discard algorithm will NOT permit this - everything MUST be counted at the highest level.
Ranked choice voting “worked”, but for whose interest?
It was specifically implemented as an incumbent protection device for Lisa Murkowski when she was successfully primaried in the previous election cycle.
For most of the years of my life I have heard the complaint that people have to vote for the lesser of two bad candidates. RVC give people the opportunity to at least vote for the candidate they prefer.
As the article says, RCV also forces a more moderate and broad appeal by candidates who can no longer rely on just a strong base.
While a loser for Palin a winner for the voters.
The voters wanted a republican.
Republican candidates got over 50% of the votes.
But they kept counting until they could eliminate the votes that went to one of the republicans. And declared the party that never got a majority of votes the winner.
RCV is a victory for the left, as it is designed to be.
It’s also a victory for opponents of the two-party tyranny. A small victory, ’tis true, but a baby step in the right direction. I wonder how the system got voted in by the Republican majority of a red state in the first place if it was "intended" to be a victory for the left?
you want a victory over the "two party tyranny"?? run a third party candidate that appeals to the majority of the voters. very simple and doesn't require a contorted, retarded voting system like rcv.
He's claiming the opposite of his own facts in evidence. It actually doesn't favor moderation or an end to the two-party tyranny and, if it does it favors anti-moderation over the two-party tyranny. As indicated, if the two parties all run similar moderate candidates, all their votes get dropped in the rounds and re-allotted to the less moderate candidates.
The fact is people don't vote for party, people vote for candidates that are affiliated with a party. If party was the only criteria Palin voters would have picked Young second and vise versa and so a Republican would have been elected.
The fact is that party affiliation carries significant weight but is not absolute. Many Young voters would not accept Palin. In 2020 Donald Trump underperformed with Republicans as did Kari Lake in 2022.
In 2024 many Republicans will not vote for President if Trump is not the nominee. Yet many Republicans will also not vote for President if Trump is the nominee.
The problem is not RCV it is the division in the party.
Bullshit! As soon as the LP began competing, muni and county elections promptly went "non" partisan to keep libertarian candidates from legalizing anything or cutting taxes. Try to find a "non" partisan election in any American count before 1972.
No, a minority wanted one Republic and another minority wanted another Republican, but the majority wanted a Democrat.
False. A plurality of Republicans preferred Palin over Begich and a plurality of Republicans preferred Begich over Palin. The sum total of individual voters in that plurality was a Republican. The reason a Republican wasn't selected is specifically because one Republican's votes for the other were discarded and the other Republican's votes for a democrat were counted.
This really isn't that hard. Anybody who's played stud (or any) poker and lost to someone with a poorer hand gets it. If you just bet, laid all the cards down, and counted them at face value, the stronger hand would always win. But if you structure the rules such that you have to bet your way up to seeing everybody's hand a lesser hand can beat a stronger one.
If all the -R voters had listed the other -R candidate as their second choice, then a -R candidate would have won.
Your problem is that they didn't, and quite a few chose -D as their second candidate.
If all the -R voters had listed the other -R candidate as their second choice, then a -R candidate would have won.
^Tell me you're too stupid to understand RCV without telling me you're too stupid to understand RCV.
If you understood majority you wouldn't be discussing unanimity.
As above, this is like stud poker. We can all see all the cards. If all the votes were counted equally, Begich won. The only reason he, and/or Palin, didn't win is because the voting method says a portion of his votes get given to Peltola but, unequally, neither Palin nor Peltola give a portion of their votes to him.
Murkowski’s Allie’s in the legislature got RCV pushed through in anticipation of an uphill primary, and doubtful general election. Which was backed. By Bitch McConnell.
For most of the years of my life I have heard the complaint that people have to vote for the lesser of two bad candidates. RVC give people the opportunity to at least vote for the candidate they prefer.
"For most of the years of my life I have heard the complaint that people have to vote for the lesser of two bad candidates. To fix that situation, I gave them the option of selecting from numerous bad candidates, all but two of whom will be eliminated or have their ranked-choice vote discarded, in their rank-preferred order." - Moderation4ever
I think we can all guess why Palin finds it "confusing." I wonder, though, if she would have found it confusing and become the spokesperson for eliminating ranked choice voting if she had won. I think she would have still been confused - not just about ranked choice voting but by pretty much everything else also - and that's an indictment of the two-party system in general.
I have said before that RCV gives the voter a method to push back against parties. Gerrymander districts will not be as safe for incumbents and parties if people have more alternatives.
ranked choice voting is just retarded
Actually it is a sophisticated system to arrive at a selection that has the broadest support among voters. The fact that you don't get the outcome you may want does not make it wrong or bad.
If you think about the election scheme it follows a natural decision process. Making a decision on a candidate or other things in life, people often start with the choice that assumes that money, time or other things are not a factor and then work to the practical. Same with RCV, the voter can have their first choice and back that up with a more practical choice.
No, it is a system rather open to gamesmanship and manipulation, especially with the absurd notion of an open primary.
"No, it is a system rather open to gamesmanship and manipulation, especially with the absurd notion of an open primary."
HOW? Random know-nothings keep popping up to claim this without evidence.
It’s literally gamesmanship. As I’ve pointed out above, if you explain poker* hands, it’s trivially easy and quick to deal the cards and see who has the best hand, but that makes for a boring game. RCV-IRV is like saying we should do several rounds of betting and drop people out for lack of will or money to make the game more transparent, objective, and fair.
*Any number of card games might work, team games like euchre or bridge might be more appropriate, but the specific rules are beside the point of distinguishing voting from gamesmanship.
The correct technical term is anonymous sockpuppets. There are roughly 25 sent here by Chicoms, CPAC and the Jesus Caucus for every actual libertarian, and they invariably lobby AGAINST casting a leveraged, law-changing libertarian spoiler vote. Listen o their infiltraitors. Dumbass Dave never mentions the word "vote" in his appeals for anarcofascist vigilanteism to hunt down and enslave pregnant women. (https://bit.ly/3eZWA0e) The other AfD nazi likewise: (http://bit.ly/3DZrEa3)
If the government funds the primary system, why should it be closed? Parties can select candidates any way they chose, but they should not expect the government to foot the bill for an election that benefits only their own party.
Actually it is a sophisticated system to arrive at a selection that has the broadest support among voters.
Actually, it's not that sophisticated. The main part of what makes it bad is that rather than trying to be good, it tries to emulate FPTP and simply be more convenient and in that emulation and convenience, empirically, fails to achieve the aim you indicate.
Rank choice voting is un-American. It has no business being used to decide elections. It's a running scam.
Please explain why it is un-American? I cannot think of why this would be the case.
I cannot think of why this would be the case.
Lemme guess, the Progressive White Dude who's too socially in tune with minorities and their oppression in this country has never heard of the notion of "One man, one vote".
How far did the Mod-sockpuppet get in math?
I worked part-time from my apartment and earned $30,030. After losing my previous business, I quickly became exhausted. Fortunately, I discovered this jobs online, and as a result, I was able to start earning money from home right away. Anyone can accomplish this elite career and increase their internet income by….
After reading this article………………>>> http://www.jobsrevenue.com
Palin--like a Jewess collaborating with altruist eugenic nationalsocialists--offered to help christianofascists use personhood forfeiture to enslave women the way you see in Texas now and in 1858- Only difference is now it is ALL fertile women. It is difficult to dislike anything that marches her bald-headed through Paris, but the fact that sloppy seconds voting has now racked up two, count 'em, 02 good results, does not make it a libertarian system. ALL change has come through spoiler votes in Kleptocracy elections. Now that freedom is finally getting the upper hand, looters will grasp at anything to nullify our spoiler votes.
Ranked choice is a travesty everywhere it has been tried, and only works for the cheaters.
Voter ID.
With their tiny cars with small trunks not enough room for ballots to be found.
Less Vote Fortifications.
Other nations have in person voting on paper on Election Day, voter ID, and manual counting by regular citizens. That’s why it’s fast and secure.
The US has high tech voting, mail in voting, electronic counting, voter intent, vote curing, provisional ballots, and professional government employees doing the counting. That’s why it’s slow and not secure .
Not really. The most common difference is that they just forbid absentee voting. You either make it to the in-person polls or you don't get to vote. Again, most of the delay is waiting for the mail-in ballots to arrive.
On top of that, they are a lot smaller than the US. Most countries are smaller than single US states. Compiling the votes is therefore easier.
Mexico has voter ID.
Correct. We have absentee voting because not all eligible voters are going to be present. Military personnel for example. Business people who have to travel on business.
Literally every first world country on planet earth has absentee voting by application for select people. What they don't have is all mail-in voting with no ID requirements, no signature checks, no chain of custody requirements. It also doesn't take a fucking month for absentee ballots to arrive, unless of course you don't set a deadline for accepting mail-in ballots and just keep counting them as they arrive until you get the result you want. But then you knew that, you lying piece of fucking shit.
Since all US elections happen at the state level, does the size difference really matter that much? I also seems like we used to almost always get results the same night when ballots were generally being counted by hand.
You either make it to the in-person polls or you don’t get to vote. Again, most of the delay is waiting for the mail-in ballots to arrive.
Correct, because they don't trust mail-in voting, they want to see your ass at the polls, with your seven different forms of ID.
Other nations also don’t have ballot curing, provisional ballots, or voter intent.
You either cast your ballot in person with proper ID on Election Day and do so correctly or it’s not counted.
Or, you know, literally fucking anybody who feels like voting by mail, including dead people who received a ballot that was harvested and filled out by a minimum wage activist working for a Soros-sponsored non-profit. But then you knew that, you lying piece of fucking shit.
You know what most Canadian military personnel posted oversees do? Vote on base there. It’s actually easier.
They do have mail-in ballots for personnel posted to places without a Canadian base, but not the entire fucking Canadian population. Or at least we didn’t until the last election when Trudeau listened to your idiot cheating rhetoric and decided to institute it here.
Most nations have absentee voting. It generally requires a valid reason and some formal witnessing of the ballot. The ballot needs to arrive by Election Day.
What most nations don’t have is mail in voting like the US. The ones that tried that abolished it again because it was rife with fraud.
Size always matters.
Not running your election system like Maricopa county Arizona is a good start.
Most countries STILL do paper ballots for in-person elections.
I suspect the biggest impact of remaining paper is that districts themselves also remain small and at a scale where humans can count and audit and manage the election process.
Go electronic and you may think things can be managed but Id bet it all just more of a black box with 'trust-looking' things.
Fewer vote fortifications.
/Tim Cavanaugh (god rest him)
No widespread corruption
I keep a covid bear in my trunk.
Not enough room for bears either.
Just enough corruption to win.
Now do States that changed how votes are counted so that mail in ballots and absentee votes cannot begin to be counted until the polls close on election day.
Oh goody! After muting over a hundred Trumpanzee anarco-faeces sockpuppets, I was worried about a shortage of pathetic MAGA infiltraitors. Silly me! Bye bye! Hahaha...
I AM Making a Good Salary from Home $6580-$7065/week , which is amazing, under a year ago I was jobless in a horrible economy. I thank God every day I was blessed with these instructions and now it's my duty to pay it forward and share it with Everyone. go to home media tech tab for more detail reinforce your heart ..
See this article for more information————————>>>GOOGLE AT WORK
Oh goody! After muting over a hundred Trumpanzee anarco-faeces sockpuppets, I was worried about a shortage of pathetic MAGA infiltraitors. Silly me! Bye bye!
Why is that a problem? Why should mail in ballots be counted before Election Day?
Bullshit and I expect you know that. Before covid - roughly 40 countries allowed postal voting of some sort or other. Much of Europe and big countries in Asia. Since covid obviously the number has gone up a lot.