Peltola defeats Palin

[bilby]

Honestly, I think Palin voters aren't that bright so I can understand any confusion on their part. But it's no reason to disregard a clear improvement in the process.

Arguably, any change that tends to disenfranchise stupid people in favour of smart people is an improvement in democracy.

Perhaps voting should be made as complicated as possible, so that the ability to cast a valid ballot becomes a de-facto test for being intelligent enough to deserve to have your opinions taken into account.

On the other hand, the Australian Federal Senate election system is so hideously complicated that I doubt that anyone properly understands it, and the ballot papers routinely have around a hundred boxes for voters to number, in order to elect six candidates (or twelve in the case of a full Senate election); And yet we still ended up with Pauline Hanson.

 

[Swammerdami]

Dobbs is the best thing to happen to the Democratic Party electorally in decades.

I've always maintained that the GOP did NOT want to overturn Roe-v-Wade. Hatred is their primary political theme, but you can't hate abortionists if abortions are not being performed. Similarly, the QOP was always careful NOT to repeal Obamacare despite their rhetoric: It was the hate-filled promise to repeal that was important.

A hungry dog is more vicious than a sated dog.

The hateful Supremes did not get the message. Perhaps their personal glory was more important to them than the long-term success of the Party of Hatred.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

However, a "decent guess" is still just a guess. What if Palin voters are dumb as rocks and didn't put anyone as their second choice, because they don't understand the system (Palin herself doesn't seem to understand it either and wants to get rid of it)? For Palin/Begich to Begich/Palin switcharoo to work, there needs to be 23k or so Palin voters who put Begich as their second choice.... not a whole lot, but it'd be good to know for certain.

I think the experience is similar to getting american drivers to accept and use roundabouts. There is a learning curve. Honestly, I think Palin voters aren't that bright so I can understand any confusion on their part. But it's no reason to disregard a clear improvement in the process. Had she won, neither she nor any of her supporters would be disparaging the new voting system.

It might be best if Begich wins... currently both he and Palin have criticized the ranked-choice vote. If Palin wins, she'd continue to criticize it probably, because she'd also have won the nomination in the republican primary and regular single-choice ballot. But Begich can only win due to this system so if he won, he might come around to supporting it.

Isn't this done in steps? Top three to top two, which provides us with the knowledge of how the last candidate's votes went for the following preference?

I think reporting it gets fuzzy as the second preference can actually become the third preference in the second tally, such as:
1: Begich
2: Some third party person that was knocked out
3: Peltola

 

[blastula]

How's any of that unfair?

Less information available to the voters about some candidates than others.

Imagine you're a Republican, who voted for Palin. Right now you might be wondering whether it makes sense to switch your vote to Begich in November, to ensure that at least a republican gets elected rather than a democrat. But you don't know who other Palin voters picked as their second choice, so it's a risky tactic.

Except the special election results weren't also the primary for November. They had a separate choice on the same ballot for the primary election, and for the primary choice they can only vote for one candidate, so there is not supposed to be any such second choice info available anyway.

 

[Jayjay]

How's any of that unfair?

Less information available to the voters about some candidates than others.

Imagine you're a Republican, who voted for Palin. Right now you might be wondering whether it makes sense to switch your vote to Begich in November, to ensure that at least a republican gets elected rather than a democrat. But you don't know who other Palin voters picked as their second choice, so it's a risky tactic.

Except the special election results weren't also the primary for November. They had a separate choice on the same ballot for the primary election, and for the primary choice they can only vote for one candidate, so there is not supposed to be any such second choice info available anyway.

So it's not the same three candidates? According to this page Tara Sweeney got 3.75% and I think it's top four who go to general election?

Or did she drop out?

Anyway what I said had nothing to do with the primary, I was just talking about ranked-choice. It's of course unusual that an election between exactly the same candidates (plus maybe Sweeney) for the same seat within less than a 3 months would take place, but in this case it did, so there is a unique chance to vote tactically because you know how other people are likely to vote. Except that it doesn't apply to all the candidates.

 

[blastula]

So it's not the same three candidates? According to this page Tara Sweeney got 3.75% and I think it's top four who go to general election?

Or did she drop out?

Someone else was fourth and he happened to drop out before the election. This did help Peltola.

Anyway what I said had nothing to do with the primary, I was just talking about ranked-choice.

It did since you're trying to call it unfair.

I think where this can be improved would be to have the primary be a choice for your party nominee, rather than an open primary, and make it a IRV choice. Then only the party nominees advance to the final election, and also have that as IRV.

 

[lpetrich]

Sore loser:

After Sarah Palin's election loss, Sen. Tom Cotton calls ranked-choice voting 'a scam'
noting
Tom Cotton on Twitter: "Ranked-choice voting is a scam to rig elections." / Twitter
and
Tom Cotton on Twitter: "60% of Alaska voters voted for a Republican, but thanks to a convoluted process and ballot exhaustion—which disenfranchises voters—a Democrat "won."" / Twitter

It's a matter of finding a candidate who is acceptable to the most people, even if not their first choice.

But at least some Republicans continue to be good losers:

Begich says he will accept results, but criticizes Alaska's ranked choice ‘confusion’

 

[lpetrich]

'Sarah Palin Instructed Supporters Not to Rank Candidates': Alaska's GOP Candidates Point Fingers after Special Election Loss | National Review

Republican congressional candidate Nick Begich reprimanded his rival, Sarah Palin, for Democrats’ Wednesday win in Alaska’s special election for its at-large seat, saying she cost the party by instructing “supporters not to rank candidates” in the state’s ranked-choice voting system.

Democrat Mary Peltola’s victory “really boils down to Sarah Palin,” Begich told National Review. “Sarah Palin’s unfavorables in the state of Alaska are so astronomically high, so high in fact, that the only other more unfavorably thought of politician in Alaska is Joe Biden,” said Begich, who insisted that Palin “cannot win statewide in Alaska.”

According to Begich, Palin’s unpopularity can be attributed to her “early resignation from the governorship, her pursuit of fame, and the monetization of her national notoriety immediately following her resignation.”

 

[lpetrich]

Sarah Palin seems like a very sore loser.

Sarah Palin on Twitter: "#SarahForAlaska (pic link)" / Twitter

Wasilla, Alaska/September 1, 2022 - Today, Governor Sarah Palin called on her Republican opponent, Nick Begich, to withdraw from the race for Alaska's at-large congressional seat.

"Nick Begich is now is a three-time loser. His ego-driven insistence on staying in Alaska's congressional race after repeatedly failing to garner a majority of Republican votes, while I have consistently won the vote, has just cost Republicans a seat in Congress. Fortunately, there is still time for Begich to do the honorable thing and withdraw before the November election.

"From the moment he started attacking our respected Congressman, Don Young, 'Negative Nick' has focused all his energy on attacking his Republican opponents instead of going after Joe Biden and the radical democrats who are destroying our country.

She continued in this vein for most of the rest of that statement.

Sarah Palin on Twitter: "(pic link)" / Twitter

"Ranked-choice voting was sold as the way to make elections better reflect the will of the people. As Alaska - and America - now sees, the exact opposite is true. The people of Alaska do not want the destructive democrat agenda to rule our land and our lives, but that's what resulted from someone's experiment with this n convoluted, confusing ranked-choice voting system. It's effectively disenfranchised 60% of Alaska voters.

 

[blastula]

Palin was whining too.

Dragon303 : Situs Terpercaya dan Resmi sejak 2016 !

Dragon303 adalah situs slot online yang sudah berdiri sejak 2016 dengan akses yang mudah dan keamanan terjamin

sarahforalaska.com

The people of Alaska do not want the destructive democrat agenda to rule our land and our lives

But she's trying to have it both ways.



It was interesting to see the candidates behavior during the election. Palin and Begich attacked each other much more than Peltola, presumably trying to win her voters' second choice, miscalculating how much the second choice of each other's votes matter too.

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

And if you think Palin is PO'd now,wait until she loses again in November.

 

[Copernicus]

How's any of that unfair?

Less information available to the voters about some candidates than others.

Imagine you're a Republican, who voted for Palin. Right now you might be wondering whether it makes sense to switch your vote to Begich in November, to ensure that at least a republican gets elected rather than a democrat. But you don't know who other Palin voters picked as their second choice, so it's a risky tactic.

Jayjay, you are overthinking this way too much. With our two-party system, we only ever get just two candidates to choose between, and it's often a candidate that does not have majority support. Ranked choice voting is just one way to improve the chances of getting an elected official who meets with the approval of most of the voting population. As you've already noted, this particular election was unusual in that it was just a rare election to fill a seat that became vacant for a few months because of a deceased incumbent. So we wouldn't want to create a system of voting that helps a voter pick their candidate strategically in this kind of rare situation.

In a normal election cycle, ranked choice voting seems to work quite well in terms of making representative democracy work the way it's supposed to work. First-past-the-post voting sometimes gives us representatives elected by a minority of the voting public, especially when there are third party spoilers bleeding votes away from a major party because of some special interest movement. Ranked choice lets everyone get a chance to get their top preference off their chests, but there needs to be a way to filter out top choices that are not favored by the majority of the voting public. If no candidate wins a majority of the votes, then it makes sense to give voters whose top choices were eliminated a chance to have their opinion still count in the election cycle.

You seem more concerned about a party winning rather than an individual candidate, but ballots tell voters which party a candidate belongs to. Voters who were more into party loyalty were already favored by the ranked choice system in that they could have avoided voting for Peltola on that basis. Instead, a significant number of Republicans preferred the individual Peltola over the individual Palin, so the party loyalty motive did not prevail. It might well have done so, if Palin were not such a stinker.

 

[lpetrich]

In fairness, she was a better loser to Mary Peltola.
Sarah Palin on Twitter: "Best of everything to @MaryPeltola in service to our state and country as she finishes Rep. Don Young’s term in office. These are trying times ~ we must all work together for the greater good! Before and after pics from yesterday’s candidate forum. - Sarah (pix link)" / Twitter


Opinion | Palin didn't lose because of ranked voting. It could help the GOP. - The Washington Post

After Peltola win in Alaska, a debate erupts over ranked choice voting - The Washington Post - "The procedure has drawn fierce criticism from some conservatives, while defenders have praised it for promoting less polarizing candidates"

With Peltola’s Defeat of Palin, Alaska’s Ranked-Choice Voting Has a Moment - The New York Times

Discussed some supporters of RCV, and their efforts to get it on the ballot in various places. Nevada will go ahead, but Missouri won't.

Then some criticism of the notion that avoiding partisan primaries will reduce political polarization.

Some political scientists have questioned the idea that it’s the primary system, not the voters, creating polarized politics.

“There’s this good-government, Mugwump reformers’ fantasy that if you have nonpartisan elections, you’ll have these reasonable, rational voters that will emerge and elect reasonable, moderate candidates,” said Lee Drutman, a senior fellow at the New America Foundation. “But that has never, ever happened.”

noting (PDF) Don't Blame Primary Voters for Polarization

Democrat Mary Peltola wins special U.S. House election, will be first Alaska Native elected to Congress

"Peltola, Palin and Begich said after results were announced Wednesday that they intend to remain in the November race."

Palin vowed to fight on to November and repeatedly called on fellow Republican Begich to drop out. Her greatest scorn, though, was reserved for Alaska’s “weird” ranked choice voting system, which she said had “disenfranchised” too many Alaskans and, by sending Peltola to Congress, effectively empowered President Joe Biden and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi “to lock up our state.”

“We can’t be disheartened, in fact, I think God prepared me for an outcome like this, believe it or not,” she said. “I think God has kind of given me peace all along. No matter what the outcome was, we’re running to expose the strange things going on in our politics that are harming our nation and our state.”

 

[Jayjay]

'Sarah Palin Instructed Supporters Not to Rank Candidates': Alaska's GOP Candidates Point Fingers after Special Election Loss | National Review

Republican congressional candidate Nick Begich reprimanded his rival, Sarah Palin, for Democrats’ Wednesday win in Alaska’s special election for its at-large seat, saying she cost the party by instructing “supporters not to rank candidates” in the state’s ranked-choice voting system.

Democrat Mary Peltola’s victory “really boils down to Sarah Palin,” Begich told National Review. “Sarah Palin’s unfavorables in the state of Alaska are so astronomically high, so high in fact, that the only other more unfavorably thought of politician in Alaska is Joe Biden,” said Begich, who insisted that Palin “cannot win statewide in Alaska.”

According to Begich, Palin’s unpopularity can be attributed to her “early resignation from the governorship, her pursuit of fame, and the monetization of her national notoriety immediately following her resignation.”

So much for the "Palin/Begich switcher" plan. If most Palin voters did what she said and "didn't comply", it's now up to Begich voters. Are they going to stomach voting for Palin as their second choice? After she asked Begich to drop out?

 

[Bomb#20]

If, at the same time, Begich voters who didn't give anyone a secondary vote, now wisened up and decided to give their secondary votes to Palin? That plan will be all for nothing if Palin voters switch and cause Begich to win first round, but don't give him enough secondary votes.

But I don't think it's realistic to assume if the Begich voters who didn't give anyone a secondary vote now wisened up, then they'd all give their secondary votes to Palin. 35% of Begich's secondary votes went to Peltola; the ones who didn't cast a secondary vote's second favorites probably split more or less the same way. If Palin had gotten all 8000 additional votes it would have put her over the top; but 65% of them wouldn't have been enough.

 

[Jayjay]

So it's not the same three candidates? According to this page Tara Sweeney got 3.75% and I think it's top four who go to general election?

Or did she drop out?

Someone else was fourth and he happened to drop out before the election. This did help Peltola.

I fail to see how. He would've probably lost in the first round, and Peltola would get most of his second votes?

Anyway what I said had nothing to do with the primary, I was just talking about ranked-choice.

It did since you're trying to call it unfair.

Not to the candidates, but to the public for transparency's sake. Case in point: Palin told her voters to not rank anyone as their second choice. But we don't know how many actually did that; and most importantly the republican voters in Alaska don't know. Which impacts their ability to vote tactically.

I think where this can be improved would be to have the primary be a choice for your party nominee, rather than an open primary, and make it a IRV choice. Then only the party nominees advance to the final election, and also have that as IRV.

IRV isn't very good for multiple seats. And STV algorithms are complex, given that even IRV seems to completely incomprehensible to the Palins and Cottons.

I think even single vote for the primary is good enough, but if it were to be improved, it could be made a multiple-choice approval vote.

 

[lpetrich]

The voting itself seems to be straightforward for many people. It's the counting of the votes that's the problem. But if one displays the results as one goes, then it becomes easier. Like showing who gets next preferences for candidates who lose, as I did.

 

[blastula]

So it's not the same three candidates? According to this page Tara Sweeney got 3.75% and I think it's top four who go to general election?

Or did she drop out?

Someone else was fourth and he happened to drop out before the election. This did help Peltola.

I fail to see how. He would've probably lost in the first round, and Peltola would get most of his second votes?

He endorsed Peltola.

Anyway what I said had nothing to do with the primary, I was just talking about ranked-choice.

It did since you're trying to call it unfair.

Not to the candidates, but to the public for transparency's sake. Case in point: Palin told her voters to not rank anyone as their second choice. But we don't know how many actually did that; and most importantly the republican voters in Alaska don't know. Which impacts their ability to vote tactically.

That doesn't change that the numbers are only relevant if this choice were a primary election. It doesn't make it unfair that this special election happens to be near in time to the next election.

But I do agree it would be nice to release all the numbers, but out of interest, not fairness.

I think where this can be improved would be to have the primary be a choice for your party nominee, rather than an open primary, and make it a IRV choice. Then only the party nominees advance to the final election, and also have that as IRV.

IRV isn't very good for multiple seats. And STV algorithms are complex, given that even IRV seems to completely incomprehensible to the Palins and Cottons.

I think even single vote for the primary is good enough, but if it were to be improved, it could be made a multiple-choice approval vote.

All the systems have drawbacks really. I don't think anyone has found the perfect one.

 

[Bomb#20]

All the systems have drawbacks really. I don't think anyone has found the perfect one.

Nor will anyone.

Arrow's impossibility theorem

 

[ZiprHead]