I'm reading they called the house race for Peltola...but I can't find any 2nd place vote tallies and Alaska election commission says they won't be done with 2nd place vote counts until 11/23.
So what gives?
On 11/19/22 8:40 PM, ScottW wrote:
I'm reading they called the house race for Peltola...but I can't find any 2nd place vote tallies and Alaska election commission says they won't be done with 2nd place vote counts until 11/23.
So what gives?You're confused that you can't get second place counts before they're counted and released?
If the outcome is your problem:
https://alaskapublic.org/2022/11/09/early-alaska-elections-results-show-tshibaka-peltola-leading-in-congressional-races/
Democrat Mary Peltola is far ahead of her Republican rivals in the U.S. House race.
The outcome of both Alaska congressional races won’t be certain until second- and third-choice rankings are applied on Nov. 23.
With about 218,000 votes counted by Thursday morning, two days after Election Day, Peltola had 47% of the vote in the election for Alaska’s lone U.S. House seat. Sarah Palin was in second place with nearly 27%
and Nick Begich III was third with about 24%.
Technically, Palin could still win, but only if the vast majority of
Begich voters took the “rank the red” message to heart and chose the former governor as their second choice. In the special election in
August, only about half of Begich voters marked Palin as a their second. Nearly 29% of Begich voters made Peltola their second choice
On Sunday, November 20, 2022 at 10:15:49 AM UTC-8, MINe109 wrote:
On 11/19/22 8:40 PM, ScottW wrote:
I'm reading they called the house race for Peltola...but I can't find any 2nd place vote tallies and Alaska election commission says they won't be done with 2nd place vote counts until 11/23.You're confused that you can't get second place counts before they're
So what gives?
counted and released?
If the outcome is your problem:
https://alaskapublic.org/2022/11/09/early-alaska-elections-results-show-tshibaka-peltola-leading-in-congressional-races/
Democrat Mary Peltola is far ahead of her Republican rivals in the U.S.
House race.
The outcome of both Alaska congressional races won’t be certain until
second- and third-choice rankings are applied on Nov. 23.
and there ya go.
With about 218,000 votes counted by Thursday morning, two days after
Election Day, Peltola had 47% of the vote in the election for Alaska’s
lone U.S. House seat. Sarah Palin was in second place with nearly 27%
and Nick Begich III was third with about 24%.
Technically, Palin could still win, but only if the vast majority of
Begich voters took the “rank the red” message to heart and chose the
former governor as their second choice. In the special election in
August, only about half of Begich voters marked Palin as a their second.
Nearly 29% of Begich voters made Peltola their second choice
Still no numbers.
And you didn't address anything I said that you snipped.
Too complicated for you?
On 11/20/22 12:27 PM, ScottW wrote:
On Sunday, November 20, 2022 at 10:15:49 AM UTC-8, MINe109 wrote:
On 11/19/22 8:40 PM, ScottW wrote:
I'm reading they called the house race for Peltola...but I can't find any 2nd place vote tallies and Alaska election commission says they won't be done with 2nd place vote counts until 11/23.You're confused that you can't get second place counts before they're
So what gives?
counted and released?
If the outcome is your problem:
https://alaskapublic.org/2022/11/09/early-alaska-elections-results-show-tshibaka-peltola-leading-in-congressional-races/
Democrat Mary Peltola is far ahead of her Republican rivals in the U.S. >> House race.
The outcome of both Alaska congressional races won’t be certain until >> second- and third-choice rankings are applied on Nov. 23.
and there ya go.You're welcome.
With about 218,000 votes counted by Thursday morning, two days after
Election Day, Peltola had 47% of the vote in the election for Alaska’s >> lone U.S. House seat. Sarah Palin was in second place with nearly 27%
and Nick Begich III was third with about 24%.
Technically, Palin could still win, but only if the vast majority of
Begich voters took the “rank the red” message to heart and chose the >> former governor as their second choice. In the special election in
August, only about half of Begich voters marked Palin as a their second. >> Nearly 29% of Begich voters made Peltola their second choice
Still no numbers.There won't be any numbers until the 23rd.
And you didn't address anything I said that you snipped.That first thing seemed the most important.
Too complicated for you?
I'd think anyone who has ever done any computer programming should be
able to sort it out. But to address your concerns, I assume they stop counting if the completed round yields a winner, they can't make you
choose a second or third choice, and your scenario that assumes Palin's second choice votes won't get counted is implausible.
On Sunday, November 20, 2022 at 1:23:36 PM UTC-8, MINe109 wrote:
On 11/20/22 12:27 PM, ScottW wrote:
On Sunday, November 20, 2022 at 10:15:49 AM UTC-8, MINe109
wrote:
On 11/19/22 8:40 PM, ScottW wrote:
I'm reading they called the house race for Peltola...but IYou're confused that you can't get second place counts before
can't find any 2nd place vote tallies and Alaska election
commission says they won't be done with 2nd place vote counts
until 11/23.
So what gives?
they're counted and released? If the outcome is your problem:
https://alaskapublic.org/2022/11/09/early-alaska-elections-results-show-tshibaka-peltola-leading-in-congressional-races/
There won't be any numbers until the 23rd.With about 218,000 votes counted by Thursday morning, two days
after Election Day, Peltola had 47% of the vote in the election
for Alaska’s lone U.S. House seat. Sarah Palin was in second
place with nearly 27% and Nick Begich III was third with about
24%.
Technically, Palin could still win, but only if the vast
majority of Begich voters took the “rank the red” message to
heart and chose the former governor as their second choice. In
the special election in August, only about half of Begich
voters marked Palin as a their second. Nearly 29% of Begich
voters made Peltola their second choice
Still no numbers.
Exactly, some whackjob dem group getting a bit premature it seems.
And you didn't address anything I said that you snipped.That first thing seemed the most important.
Too complicated for you?
I'd think anyone who has ever done any computer programming should
be able to sort it out. But to address your concerns, I assume they
stop counting if the completed round yields a winner, they can't
make you choose a second or third choice, and your scenario that
assumes Palin's second choice votes won't get counted is
implausible.
No it's not. If Palin is one of two last left standing with Peltola
will her 2nd choice (or 3rds even) votes ever be considered? I've
not heard anyone look at this.
Should I construct an example?
100 ballots Candidate A has 47 first choice votes. Candidate B has
27 first choice votes. Candidate C has 25 first choice votes
Candidate D has 1 first choice votes.
D is eliminated first so it 2nd choice vote is reallocated. It went
to C So now its 47, 27, 26 C is eliminated and those ballots of 1st
and 2nds are reallocated according to 2nd and 3rd. D's one voter
didn't select a 3rd so that ballot is dead. C's 2nd were 19 for B
and 6 for D.
So the new tally is.... 47 for A and 46 for B. B is eliminated....but
all of B's 27 ballots 2nd choices were for C. So if we resurrect Cs
first with now eliminated B's 2nds....C has 52. Throw in D's second
and it's 53.
Is C going to win?
On 11/20/22 6:15 PM, ScottW wrote:
On Sunday, November 20, 2022 at 1:23:36 PM UTC-8, MINe109 wrote:
On 11/20/22 12:27 PM, ScottW wrote:
On Sunday, November 20, 2022 at 10:15:49 AM UTC-8, MINe109There won't be any numbers until the 23rd.
wrote:
On 11/19/22 8:40 PM, ScottW wrote:
I'm reading they called the house race for Peltola...but IYou're confused that you can't get second place counts before
can't find any 2nd place vote tallies and Alaska election
commission says they won't be done with 2nd place vote counts
until 11/23.
So what gives?
they're counted and released? If the outcome is your problem:
https://alaskapublic.org/2022/11/09/early-alaska-elections-results-show-tshibaka-peltola-leading-in-congressional-races/
With about 218,000 votes counted by Thursday morning, two days
after Election Day, Peltola had 47% of the vote in the election
for Alaska’s lone U.S. House seat. Sarah Palin was in second
place with nearly 27% and Nick Begich III was third with about
24%.
Technically, Palin could still win, but only if the vast
majority of Begich voters took the “rank the red” message to
heart and chose the former governor as their second choice. In
the special election in August, only about half of Begich
voters marked Palin as a their second. Nearly 29% of Begich
voters made Peltola their second choice
Still no numbers.
Exactly, some whackjob dem group getting a bit premature it seems.Not at all. A legitimate news organization, Alaska Public Media, used reported facts to explain under what circumstances Palin could win with
a reference to the previous result.
And you didn't address anything I said that you snipped.That first thing seemed the most important.
Too complicated for you?
I'd think anyone who has ever done any computer programming should
be able to sort it out. But to address your concerns, I assume they
stop counting if the completed round yields a winner, they can't
make you choose a second or third choice, and your scenario that
assumes Palin's second choice votes won't get counted is
implausible.
No it's not. If Palin is one of two last left standing with PeltolaOnly the ones who made the rules:
will her 2nd choice (or 3rds even) votes ever be considered? I've
not heard anyone look at this.
https://www.elections.alaska.gov/RCV.php
"If a candidate gets 50% + 1 vote in round one, that candidate wins and
the counting stops."
If not:
"The candidate with the fewest votes gets eliminated. If you voted for
that candidate, your vote goes to your next choice and you still have a
say in who wins.
If your first choice candidate was not eliminated, your vote stays with them. Votes are counted again."
So, no, the remaining ranked choices are not counted if a majority has
been achieved. This situation of "exhausted votes" is no more a hardship than in a regular binary outcome election in which the losing votes are "wasted."
Should I construct an example?
100 ballots Candidate A has 47 first choice votes. Candidate B has
27 first choice votes. Candidate C has 25 first choice votes
Candidate D has 1 first choice votes.
D is eliminated first so it 2nd choice vote is reallocated. It went
to C So now its 47, 27, 26 C is eliminated and those ballots of 1st
and 2nds are reallocated according to 2nd and 3rd. D's one voter
didn't select a 3rd so that ballot is dead. C's 2nd were 19 for B
and 6 for D.
So the new tally is.... 47 for A and 46 for B. B is eliminated....but
all of B's 27 ballots 2nd choices were for C. So if we resurrect Cs
first with now eliminated B's 2nds....C has 52. Throw in D's second
and it's 53.
Is C going to win?"This keeps happening in rounds until two candidates are left and the
one with the most votes wins."
So, if Palin is one of the last two and loses, there's no one left to receive the remaining ranked choice votes which she already had from previous rounds as the "vote stays with [her]" until she loses.
Ranked choice is a tie-breaker, not a cumulative vote sorter.
You're not the first to think of it: the subject goes back to the Enlightenment of 18th Century France.
So not everyone gets the benefit of a second choice, seems like a serious flaw.
On 11/21/22 12:26 PM, ScottW wrote:
So not everyone gets the benefit of a second choice, seems like a serious flaw.Superior to an ordinary election in which no one gets the benefit of a
second choice.
On Monday, November 21, 2022 at 12:06:12 PM UTC-8, MINe109 wrote:
On 11/21/22 12:26 PM, ScottW wrote:
So not everyone gets the benefit of a second choice, seems like a serious flaw.Superior to an ordinary election in which no one gets the benefit of a
second choice.
IYO. I say it's flawed and only by chance is your 2nd counted.
I say go one more round of 2nd's allocation after determining that
last runner up has no path to victory.
(snip the irrelevant prattle of another random example)
On 11/21/22 5:28 PM, ScottW wrote:
On Monday, November 21, 2022 at 12:06:12 PM UTC-8, MINe109 wrote:
On 11/21/22 12:26 PM, ScottW wrote:
So not everyone gets the benefit of a second choice, seems like a serious flaw.Superior to an ordinary election in which no one gets the benefit of a
second choice.
IYO. I say it's flawed and only by chance is your 2nd counted.It's not an opinion. In a conventional election 2nd choices are never counted.
And it's not by chance, but under a specific outcome in which no one has
a majority, hence the "instant runoff" description.
I say go one more round of 2nd's allocation after determining thatYou advocate not accepting the winner of the majority of votes?
last runner up has no path to victory.
(snip the irrelevant prattle of another random example)Not random, chosen to show 2nd choices can change an outcome.
On Tuesday, November 22, 2022 at 8:14:49 AM UTC-8, MINe109 wrote:
On 11/21/22 5:28 PM, ScottW wrote:
On Monday, November 21, 2022 at 12:06:12 PM UTC-8, MINe109 wrote:It's not an opinion. In a conventional election 2nd choices are never
On 11/21/22 12:26 PM, ScottW wrote:
So not everyone gets the benefit of a second choice, seems like a serious flaw.Superior to an ordinary election in which no one gets the benefit of a >>>> second choice.
IYO. I say it's flawed and only by chance is your 2nd counted.
counted.
We're not talking about conventional elections.
And it's not by chance, but under a specific outcome in which no one has
a majority, hence the "instant runoff" description.
Agreed... but the logic of it fails.
Why not just add up all votes (firsts, 2nds, 3rds etc.)
Whoever has the most wins.
Why should someone's 3rd get counted just because it falls behind a last place,
and a 2nd to last place be counted over
a 2nd choice that happens to fall behind a 2nd place finisher?
I say go one more round of 2nd's allocation after determining thatYou advocate not accepting the winner of the majority of votes?
last runner up has no path to victory.
In my scenario C ended up with 52 but doesn't win.
On 11/22/22 3:54 PM, ScottW wrote:
On Tuesday, November 22, 2022 at 8:14:49 AM UTC-8, MINe109 wrote:
On 11/21/22 5:28 PM, ScottW wrote:
On Monday, November 21, 2022 at 12:06:12 PM UTC-8, MINe109 wrote:It's not an opinion. In a conventional election 2nd choices are never
On 11/21/22 12:26 PM, ScottW wrote:
So not everyone gets the benefit of a second choice, seems like a serious flaw.Superior to an ordinary election in which no one gets the benefit of a >>>> second choice.
IYO. I say it's flawed and only by chance is your 2nd counted.
counted.
We're not talking about conventional elections.We're talking about ranked choice. If you bring up a flaw it's
acceptable to point out that flaw doesn't exist in a conventional election.
Ranked choice: only some subsequent votes are counted
Conventional: no subsequent votes are counted
And it's not by chance, but under a specific outcome in which no one has >> a majority, hence the "instant runoff" description.
Agreed... but the logic of it fails.That would be multiple votes per voter. There are election methods in
Why not just add up all votes (firsts, 2nds, 3rds etc.)
Whoever has the most wins.
which the voter has, say, five votes and allocates them among the
candidates but that's not the case for ranked choice. See: "cumulative voting."
Why should someone's 3rd get counted just because it falls behind a last place,There's a clear hierarchy that explains when votes get counted and it's always in favor of creating a majority.
and a 2nd to last place be counted over
a 2nd choice that happens to fall behind a 2nd place finisher?
You're free to propose a different voting method but those rules won't
apply to the one at hand.
I say go one more round of 2nd's allocation after determining thatYou advocate not accepting the winner of the majority of votes?
last runner up has no path to victory.
In my scenario C ended up with 52 but doesn't win.Your scenario doesn't match the real world election you're talking
about.
So, no, C didn't win because having been eliminated those votes
are "exhausted."
On Wednesday, November 23, 2022 at 8:00:16 AM UTC-8, MINe109 wrote:
On 11/22/22 3:54 PM, ScottW wrote:
Your scenario doesn't match the real world election you're talkingI say go one more round of 2nd's allocation after determining thatYou advocate not accepting the winner of the majority of votes?
last runner up has no path to victory.
In my scenario C ended up with 52 but doesn't win.
about.
It might? Are the numbers out yet?
Anyway, I'm simply pointing the very possible scenario where theThat's not the test. The first choice and first choice available in a
ranked choice as implemented fails the most basic of tests.
All voters votes shall be treated equally. Clearly this system
fails that basic test.
That you are blind to this is not surprising.
So, no, C didn't win because having been eliminated those votes
are "exhausted."
How do you like your vote being "exhausted" based upon some random circumstance?
That's just BS speak from you...again. Those votes are not given equal treatment...and that IMO should void the systemhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Condorcet_winner_criterion
or demand a fix.
On 11/23/22 12:12 PM, ScottW wrote:
On Wednesday, November 23, 2022 at 8:00:16 AM UTC-8, MINe109 wrote:
On 11/22/22 3:54 PM, ScottW wrote:
Your scenario doesn't match the real world election you're talkingI say go one more round of 2nd's allocation after determining that >>>>> last runner up has no path to victory.You advocate not accepting the winner of the majority of votes?
In my scenario C ended up with 52 but doesn't win.
about.
It might? Are the numbers out yet?It won't because the rules of the election don't allow the outcome you
posit.
Anyway, I'm simply pointing the very possible scenario where the
ranked choice as implemented fails the most basic of tests.
All voters votes shall be treated equally. Clearly this systemThat's not the test. The first choice and first choice available in a
fails that basic test.
recount are favored.
That you are blind to this is not surprising.It's the first time I've seen anyone say uncast votes are as important
as those cast so I wasn't expecting you to say it.
So, no, C didn't win because having been eliminated those votes
are "exhausted."
How do you like your vote being "exhausted" based upon some random circumstance?It's no different than voting for a losing candidate in a normal
election.
On Wednesday, November 23, 2022 at 1:29:32 PM UTC-8, MINe109 wrote:What happens when your candidate loses in any other election? You're
On 11/23/22 12:12 PM, ScottW wrote:
On Wednesday, November 23, 2022 at 8:00:16 AM UTC-8, MINe109 wrote:It won't because the rules of the election don't allow the outcome you
On 11/22/22 3:54 PM, ScottW wrote:
Your scenario doesn't match the real world election you're talkingI say go one more round of 2nd's allocation after determining that >>>>>>> last runner up has no path to victory.You advocate not accepting the winner of the majority of votes?
In my scenario C ended up with 52 but doesn't win.
about.
It might? Are the numbers out yet?
posit.
Anyway, I'm simply pointing the very possible scenario where theThat's not the test. The first choice and first choice available in a
ranked choice as implemented fails the most basic of tests.
All voters votes shall be treated equally. Clearly this system
fails that basic test.
recount are favored.
That you are blind to this is not surprising.It's the first time I've seen anyone say uncast votes are as important
as those cast so I wasn't expecting you to say it.
It's no different than voting for a losing candidate in a normalSo, no, C didn't win because having been eliminated those votes
are "exhausted."
How do you like your vote being "exhausted" based upon some random circumstance?
election.
LoL.... and Stephen takes denial to a whole new level of absurdity.
On 11/23/22 5:23 PM, ScottW wrote:
On Wednesday, November 23, 2022 at 1:29:32 PM UTC-8, MINe109 wrote:
On 11/23/22 12:12 PM, ScottW wrote:
On Wednesday, November 23, 2022 at 8:00:16 AM UTC-8, MINe109 wrote:It won't because the rules of the election don't allow the outcome you
On 11/22/22 3:54 PM, ScottW wrote:
Your scenario doesn't match the real world election you're talkingI say go one more round of 2nd's allocation after determining that >>>>>>> last runner up has no path to victory.You advocate not accepting the winner of the majority of votes?
In my scenario C ended up with 52 but doesn't win.
about.
It might? Are the numbers out yet?
posit.
Anyway, I'm simply pointing the very possible scenario where theThat's not the test. The first choice and first choice available in a
ranked choice as implemented fails the most basic of tests.
All voters votes shall be treated equally. Clearly this system
fails that basic test.
recount are favored.
That you are blind to this is not surprising.It's the first time I've seen anyone say uncast votes are as important
as those cast so I wasn't expecting you to say it.
It's no different than voting for a losing candidate in a normalSo, no, C didn't win because having been eliminated those votes
are "exhausted."
How do you like your vote being "exhausted" based upon some random circumstance?
election.
LoL.... and Stephen takes denial to a whole new level of absurdity.What happens when your candidate loses in any other election?
You're
doubling down on stupid when there's a bunch of interesting thought on
the subject going back centuries.
Here's your conundrum:
https://www.accuratedemocracy.com/l_cycles.htm
"There is no Condorcet winner if A beats B, B beats C, and C beats A.
This is called a voting cycle. (It is also called a voting paradox
because the collective ranking can be circular even if each voter has non-circular preferences.)"
You're not the only one who's thought of it. Other voting systems:
https://medium.com/basic-voting-theory/the-borda-count-9d4f15b4d20e
"[A]voter ranks candidates on a ballot, and the candidates receive
points in reverse order — for example, out of three candidates, the first-ranked candidate earns 3 points, the second-ranked candidate earns
2 points, and the third-ranked candidate earns 1 point. Each ballot adds <3,2,1> points to the candidates."
Familiar to voters in Slovenian parliamentary elections.
https://condorcet.ca/condorcet-voting/ranked-pairs-method/
“round-robin” competition — Every candidate competes one-on-one against
each other candidate to determine the outcome.
Each voter casts a single ballot, in a single election round, indicating
his or her relative preferences among the candidates.
On Thursday, November 24, 2022 at 8:12:48 AM UTC-8, MINe109 wrote:
On 11/23/22 5:23 PM, ScottW wrote:
What happens when your candidate loses in any other election?How do you like your vote being "exhausted" based upon some random circumstance?It's no different than voting for a losing candidate in a normal
election.
LoL.... and Stephen takes denial to a whole new level of absurdity.
Another absurd and irrelevant obfuscation.
You're
doubling down on stupid when there's a bunch of interesting thought on
the subject going back centuries.
Here's your conundrum:
https://www.accuratedemocracy.com/l_cycles.htm
"There is no Condorcet winner if A beats B, B beats C, and C beats A.
This is called a voting cycle. (It is also called a voting paradox
because the collective ranking can be circular even if each voter has
non-circular preferences.)"
But B doesn't beat C in round two.
And in our example C has the only path to majority.
You're not the only one who's thought of it. Other voting systems:
https://medium.com/basic-voting-theory/the-borda-count-9d4f15b4d20e
"[A]voter ranks candidates on a ballot, and the candidates receive
points in reverse order — for example, out of three candidates, the
first-ranked candidate earns 3 points, the second-ranked candidate earns
2 points, and the third-ranked candidate earns 1 point. Each ballot adds
<3,2,1> points to the candidates."
Familiar to voters in Slovenian parliamentary elections.
https://condorcet.ca/condorcet-voting/ranked-pairs-method/
“round-robin” competition — Every candidate competes one-on-one against
each other candidate to determine the outcome.
Each voter casts a single ballot, in a single election round, indicating
his or her relative preferences among the candidates.
How do you call that "one-on-one". It's anything but.
You're just spewing garbage irrelevant to the issue with this system I've pointed out.
I see they called the race....will they ever release ALL the numbers?
I don't see anything but the final %.
I see they called the race....will they ever release ALL the numbers?
I don't see anything but the final %.
On 11/24/22 10:40 AM, ScottW wrote:
I see they called the race....will they ever release ALL the numbers?"In the end, Peltola took just under 55% of the vote. Palin got just
I don't see anything but the final %.
over 45%. Palin got a boost once fellow Republican Nick Begich III, who finished third, was eliminated and his 64,392 ballots redistributed
during ranked choice tabulation. Nearly two-thirds of his voters chose
Palin as their second choice, but 21% didn’t make a second choice – and nearly 12% went for Peltola, who won the two-year term."
Do you think Begich had a mathematically viable chance at winning in a subsequent count?
On Friday, November 25, 2022 at 8:04:18 AM UTC-8, MINe109 wrote:
On 11/24/22 10:40 AM, ScottW wrote:
I see they called the race....will they ever release ALL the numbers?"In the end, Peltola took just under 55% of the vote. Palin got just
I don't see anything but the final %.
over 45%. Palin got a boost once fellow Republican Nick Begich III, who
finished third, was eliminated and his 64,392 ballots redistributed
during ranked choice tabulation. Nearly two-thirds of his voters chose
Palin as their second choice, but 21% didn’t make a second choice – and >> nearly 12% went for Peltola, who won the two-year term."
Do you think Begich had a mathematically viable chance at winning in a
subsequent count?
Depends on what Palins voters did with their 2nd choice....but it was never disclosed. They didn't get a 2nd choice.
On 11/25/22 10:31 AM, ScottW wrote:
On Friday, November 25, 2022 at 8:04:18 AM UTC-8, MINe109 wrote:
On 11/24/22 10:40 AM, ScottW wrote:
I see they called the race....will they ever release ALL the numbers? >>> I don't see anything but the final %."In the end, Peltola took just under 55% of the vote. Palin got just
over 45%. Palin got a boost once fellow Republican Nick Begich III, who >> finished third, was eliminated and his 64,392 ballots redistributed
during ranked choice tabulation. Nearly two-thirds of his voters chose
Palin as their second choice, but 21% didn’t make a second choice – and
nearly 12% went for Peltola, who won the two-year term."
Do you think Begich had a mathematically viable chance at winning in a
subsequent count?
Depends on what Palins voters did with their 2nd choice....but it was neverThat's because there was a winner chosen in the second round. Palin's
disclosed. They didn't get a 2nd choice.
voters got their first choice. Better, no?
Of course, that doesn't answer the question. Since you have the final
count
and the Begich's count divided into percentages, what does the
math tell you?
The only way Palin voters' second choices would be counted was if there
were an exact tie in the second round. Begich would still be eliminated
so any Palin second choices for him wouldn't count as there's no way
under the rules for an eliminated candidate to return. If he did return,
he would most likely split the vote against Peltola.
The only way your scenario works is in a cumulative voting system which
you are free to propose but it's tough to argue it's better because it allows for unlikely and undemocratic outcomes.
On Friday, November 25, 2022 at 11:21:30 AM UTC-8, MINe109 wrote:
On 11/25/22 10:31 AM, ScottW wrote:
On Friday, November 25, 2022 at 8:04:18 AM UTC-8, MINe109 wrote:That's because there was a winner chosen in the second round. Palin's
On 11/24/22 10:40 AM, ScottW wrote:
I see they called the race....will they ever release ALL the numbers? >>>>> I don't see anything but the final %."In the end, Peltola took just under 55% of the vote. Palin got just
over 45%. Palin got a boost once fellow Republican Nick Begich III, who >>>> finished third, was eliminated and his 64,392 ballots redistributed
during ranked choice tabulation. Nearly two-thirds of his voters chose >>>> Palin as their second choice, but 21% didn’t make a second choice – and
nearly 12% went for Peltola, who won the two-year term."
Do you think Begich had a mathematically viable chance at winning in a >>>> subsequent count?
Depends on what Palins voters did with their 2nd choice....but it was never >>> disclosed. They didn't get a 2nd choice.
voters got their first choice. Better, no?
No Palin's voters didn't get their first choice. She was eliminated just as Begich was
yet their 2nd choice gets zero consideration.
And explain HTF anyone can claim Peltola got 55% of the vote and Palin got 45% when we
know that 21% of Bagich votes (or 11,243....6% of the total) were "exhuasted".
And according to Ballotpedia the final tally was 51.5 to 49.5 (much closer than you said)
But of total votes cast Peltola only tally's 48.4% so clearly a path remains for someone to
get to 50+.
Of course, that doesn't answer the question. Since you have the final
count
No we don't. We don't have Palins 2nd choice votes.
and the Begich's count divided into percentages, what does the
math tell you?
It tells me if every Palin voter had Begich as 2nd, he'd win easily.
The only way Palin voters' second choices would be counted was if there
were an exact tie in the second round. Begich would still be eliminated
so any Palin second choices for him wouldn't count as there's no way
under the rules for an eliminated candidate to return. If he did return,
he would most likely split the vote against Peltola.
Which is just a bunch of BS nonsense rules.
Palin voters are getting screwed not having their 2nds considered just because she was 2nd in firsts.
While Begich voters get their 2nds to count when he was 3rd.
There's no f'ing logic in that. I know that's the "rules" but the rules
are obligated to treat each voter equally and these rules clearly do not.
As I see it's 2 votes from some voters and only 1 vote from others.
If this was constitutional, we'd still have 3/5 of a vote.
The only way your scenario works is in a cumulative voting system which
you are free to propose but it's tough to argue it's better because it
allows for unlikely and undemocratic outcomes.
It's not radically different from what's happening now.
Go through all the eliminations and tally the 2nds/3rds etc and whoever has the highest tally among all the scenarios wins.
We don't know what Begich tally was after Palin was eliminated.
Run that and if he's short of Peltola ...so be it.
Stop now...and we just had an unconstitutional election with unequal treatment of all ballots.
ScottW
On 11/25/22 9:37 PM, ScottW wrote:
On Friday, November 25, 2022 at 11:21:30 AM UTC-8, MINe109 wrote:
On 11/25/22 10:31 AM, ScottW wrote:
On Friday, November 25, 2022 at 8:04:18 AM UTC-8, MINe109 wrote:That's because there was a winner chosen in the second round. Palin's
On 11/24/22 10:40 AM, ScottW wrote:
I see they called the race....will they ever release ALL the numbers? >>>>> I don't see anything but the final %."In the end, Peltola took just under 55% of the vote. Palin got just >>>> over 45%. Palin got a boost once fellow Republican Nick Begich III, who >>>> finished third, was eliminated and his 64,392 ballots redistributed >>>> during ranked choice tabulation. Nearly two-thirds of his voters chose >>>> Palin as their second choice, but 21% didn’t make a second choice – and
nearly 12% went for Peltola, who won the two-year term."
Do you think Begich had a mathematically viable chance at winning in a >>>> subsequent count?
Depends on what Palins voters did with their 2nd choice....but it was never
disclosed. They didn't get a 2nd choice.
voters got their first choice. Better, no?
No Palin's voters didn't get their first choice. She was eliminated just as Begich wasThey didn't get their choice because she lost, which is the point of an election: to choose a winner.
yet their 2nd choice gets zero consideration.
And explain HTF anyone can claim Peltola got 55% of the vote and Palin got 45% when weThe figure is derived from the total of not exhausted votes.
know that 21% of Bagich votes (or 11,243....6% of the total) were "exhuasted".
On Saturday, November 26, 2022 at 7:29:05 AM UTC-8, MINe109 wrote:
On 11/25/22 9:37 PM, ScottW wrote:
On Friday, November 25, 2022 at 11:21:30 AM UTC-8, MINe109 wrote:
On 11/25/22 10:31 AM, ScottW wrote:
On Friday, November 25, 2022 at 8:04:18 AM UTC-8, MINe109 wrote:
They didn't get their choice because she lost, which is the point of anThat's because there was a winner chosen in the second round. Palin'sDo you think Begich had a mathematically viable chance at winning in a >>>>>> subsequent count?
Depends on what Palins voters did with their 2nd choice....but it was never
disclosed. They didn't get a 2nd choice.
voters got their first choice. Better, no?
No Palin's voters didn't get their first choice. She was eliminated just as Begich was
yet their 2nd choice gets zero consideration.
election: to choose a winner.
So the quirky rules determine outcome more than the votes cast.
Great way to create confidence in the electoral system.
And explain HTF anyone can claim Peltola got 55% of the vote and Palin got 45% when weThe figure is derived from the total of not exhausted votes.
know that 21% of Bagich votes (or 11,243....6% of the total) were "exhuasted".
It's propaganda to deceive voters into the appearance of a clear majority winner.
This thread is done. Alaska ran a ranked choice experiment as I support states right to do and
IMO...it failed miserably.
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 493 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 172:48:54 |
| Calls: | 9,704 |
| Calls today: | 4 |
| Files: | 13,736 |
| Messages: | 6,178,520 |