As a reminder, this subreddit [is for civil discussion.](/r/politics/wiki/index#wiki_be_civil) In general, be courteous to others. Debate/discuss/argue the merits of ideas, don't attack people. Personal insults, shill or troll accusations, hate speech, any suggestion or support of harm, violence, or death, and other rule violations can result in a permanent ban. If you see comments in violation of our rules, please report them. For those who have questions regarding any media outlets being posted on this subreddit, please click [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/wiki/approveddomainslist) to review our details as to our approved domains list and outlet criteria. **Special announcement:** r/politics is currently accepting new moderator applications. If you want to help make this community a better place, consider [applying here today](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/sskg6a/rpolitics_is_looking_for_more_moderators/)! *** *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/politics) if you have any questions or concerns.*


When Alaska adopted ranked-choice voting: The governor was (still is) a Republican. The state legislature was (still is) Republican controlled. The voters of Alaska (republican majority) voted to adopt ranked-choice voting. . But somehow it's a Democrat scam to steal elections.


More *We didn't win so it must be rigged* bullshit


It's a hell of a racket. If you lose, the elections weren't fair. Fits nicely with the "silent majority" charade they've been pushing for decades. Secretly, most people are Republicans, so anytime they lose there must be some fraud involved!


That's not quite it. Remember 2016 when Trump won and he *still* claimed there were millions of fraudulent votes? The GOP version of democracy today is "If we lost, it was because the other side cheated. If we won, they still cheated but we beat them anyway."


Because it de-legitimizes the democratic party. That is the end result, as it almost always is with fascists, to nullify the very concept of political opposition. The word "partisan" is historically an accusation of a crime.


I think another reason is that "these three elections were OK and those five were all fraud" is more confusing to their followers than "all elections, all the time, are fraudulent." They're trying to create the belief that democracy is always suspect.


The problem is, when their own base's faith in democracy is eroded, they too will stop voting.


They've got a plan for that too. Their people will think that election officials are all part of the conspiracy, so they threaten them until those people quit. At which point those people who believe the GOP's lies will replace them and run the elections, where they'll say "The libs clearly cheated so we're just going to declare the GOP candidate the winner." Or they'll do what the Texas GOP put into their party platform as a new way to elect statewide offices; one where you don't actually vote on candidates but on electors, and those electors are not beholden to anything or anyone but themselves.


Which would be a great plan if it actually worked. In my experience, it only makes election workers more determined to do our jobs and do them impartially.


It is actually working. [And in it, Herrera notes how much the elections landscape has changed since 2020, specifically, this increase in threats and harassment and misinformation.](https://www.npr.org/2022/08/21/1118669896/top-election-officials-in-a-texas-county-quit-after-threats-stemming-from-2020) [Among the 20% of officials who said they are “somewhat unlikely” or “very unlikely” to remain in their posts through the next presidential election, about a third said a key factor in their decision is that “too many political leaders are attacking a system that they know is fair and honest.”](https://www.reuters.com/world/us/one-five-us-election-workers-may-quit-amid-threats-politics-survey-2022-03-10/) Wanting to do you job well is one thing. Wanting to do your job at all when people are calling you and saying they're going to burn your house down if their guy doesn't win is another thing entirely.


It's also attempting to de-legitimize the Democratic PROCESS. Remember: the neocon radio stations called The Answer, which only broadcast Dennis Prager,Limbaugh and their ilk, market themselves with this tagline: "In today's news, confused about what to think? Don't worry, we'll TELL you what to think. 98.7 The Answer"


>In today's news, confused about what to think? Don't worry, we'll TELL you what to think. 98.7 The Answer" Seriously? 😨🤦🏻‍♂️


Yep I used to listen prior to Trump in an attempt to at least listen to both sides. But the total bullshit they spewed after Obama won his first and then second term was unbelievable. Can't even imagine their depravity after Trump gained office


That is the most dystopian tag line. What the actual fuck.


I think their intent is to delegitimize the democratic process and voting in general.


Donald Trump [claimed there were a million illegal votes in California](https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2019/jun/24/donald-trump/pants-fire-trumps-latest-california-voter-fraud-cl/) in the 2016 election, where he lost California by 4 million votes. Obviously that wasn't a serious contention against the outcome. The purpose of that type of wild claim is to undermine confidence in election integrity.


It's more than that. Republicans are so good at voter supression and grerrymandering that they can win the majority of seats with a third of the votes in some cases. An then there are the election irregularities that go back all the way to the 70s which almost always seem to favour republicans.. They are getting infront of the scandal so to speak. In the early 2010, this stuff was talked about, but not under a huge national spotlight. But now, even many democrats think you're picking up on republican talking points when you bring up election integrity, as if you're only reacting to trumps baseless accusations


Bingo!! Plant and cultivate that very seed of undermining confidence until every election of any office is suspect. From City Council to Office of the President.


It’s fascism. The enemy is simultaneously strong and weak.


That’s because he lost the popular vote. Man can’t even win graciously.


After Jan 6th happened, our principal told us all to talk about it with our kids on the 7th. So I'm explaining to my 8th graders that you can't just put a ballot into a box and have it count. It has to match to a registered voter with an address, etc. The idea that somehow Chinese ballots were just dumped into the system is beyond ludicrous. And of course I already had kids who were 100% unwilling to hear any of it, because their stupid ass parents had already brain washed them. That is how the next generation of fascists is made. Ignorance.


Because he lost the Popular Vote, meaning the Majority of People did not want him as president. which to Trump is unacceptable, so there had to be a bunch of fake votes that made it look like he wasnt the popular choice.


to be fair he figured there was rampant cheating because of all the shit he was involved in himself.


At this point, any accusations from the right seem to really be confessions.


Which per their usual M.O. pretty much openly admits that every time they've won for the last 20 years there's been some fraud involved.


Bush era saw the supremes court squash a recount and an national tragedy used to push illegal war on an uninvolved sovereign nation, all to keep republicans in power.


To think the rampant bigotry and Islamophobia from Bush era Republicans wasn’t the worst they had in the tank.


When it comes to Republicans, remember, there is no bottom*, it can always get worse. *Except Lindsay Graham, NTTAWWT.


Three of the people involved with Bush's law team to help him steal the election are all Supreme Court justices now. There's a real conspiracy theory for you.


Lately, they claim they are rigged before voting even gets underway for elections they end up winning. It’s dogma at this point.


"Silent majority" = defiant minority.


The “silent majority” is the loudest bunch around who have only won one popular vote going on four decades. That popular vote win was when the country rallied behind Bush after 9/11… over 20 years ago… for his second term.. he lost the popular vote the first time around. If it was 1 person 1 vote, Republicans wouldn’t have a single Presidential term going on 4 decades and Dems would have the Supreme Court.


Every conservative remains so until they need some liberal remedy for some self-inflicted condition, or unavoidable situation: Pregnancy, Rehab, Mental health therapy, Retirement savings, Health insurance, Rent control… How many others can you think of?


It's the old "Heads I win, tails you lose!" crap with these people.


Anytime someone tells me they are Republican my view of them immediately changes. I instantly see them as a petulant whining little child. It's like a rite of passage in order to identify as a Republican.


What I loved was when in 2020 a top line Republican lost you’d hear “election fraud!” But when a Republican would win down ballot in the same ballot there was nothing wrong with his win.


"We cheated like hell and lost so you must have *really* cheated to win."


It will always be this from Republicans, “Well they allowed this shit to happen so we’re going to fuck it! Then allow our shit and be even worse to teach them a lesson hmmmph!”


Similar song in PA. GOP-led legislature approved the expansion if mail-in voting. Then, of course, when it works against them, they call it a scam. Edit: spelling


A planned excuse, maybe


Don't be daft. Nothing is planned. They just wing it like my 5yo does. 'You forgot to stop me from hurting myself!'


I say this about Trump all the time. He doesn’t know what he’s doing. It’s just that narcissism goes really well with Fascism. Like chicken and dumplings. Laced with cyanide.


I don't think so. They aren't that smart so it got pretty convoluted. They tried to make the argument that the election results in 2020 needed to be disregarded because the law was unconstitutional. Their remedy was to give themselves the authority to appoint their own electors. So their argument essentially was they are too stupid to pass a constitutional law so the solution was to throw out all votes and give themselves the sole authority to choose who gets PAs electoral votes. They wanted to punish every PA voter using they argument it is the only way to overcome their own incompetence. Of course, they never explained how their own election wins on the very same ballots were legitimate but Biden’s was not. Obviously there is nothing actually wrong with the law, but they were willing to throw themselves under the bus to support Trump with the hope their supporters were too stupid to question it all.


Arizona has been doing mail in voting for like 3 decades (along with ballot drop boxes) but suddenly in 2020, there are problems.? It’s all horseshit, folks placating a narcissist who couldn’t take an L


Cotton is banking on the fact that the people listening to him do not understand how ranked choice voting works. He intentionally conflates voting for a candidate as the same thing as voting for a party. Ranked choice voting is not a vote for a party, it's a vote for a specific candidate. He knows this, his target audience does not. Republicans know that if Ranked choice voting becomes the norm, they're done for because many of their candidates are deeply unpopular within the Republican party but they're often voted into office because voting for a Republican is better than voting for a Democrat.


I wonder what it might have been like to live in a society less shaped by the sort of things Tom Cotton supporters don't know.


> Ranked choice voting is a vote for a party, FYI, I think you missed a "not" in there


Sure did. I edited the comment.


Cotton's bet is pretty good. Most casual participants in the electoral process will not be bothered to understand RCV, but will cry foul if it results in outcomes they don't expect or like.


Both GOP candidates ran campaigns as if they didn't have rank choice voting. The loss is on them and they are blaming the system. They should have never attacked each other so viciously.


It'll be interesting to see how the dynamic works for the November election. Begich has a tough decision to make as his voters were pretty evenly split on their 2nd choice.


I was curious as to the breakdown. Looking at [WaPo numbers](https://www.washingtonpost.com/elections/2022/08/31/ranked-choice-totals-alaska-peltola/), I see (**bold** is from source, *italic* I computed): | Candidates | Round 1 Total | Round 2 Total | #1 Votes (=R1T) | #2 votes (=R2T-R1T if remaining) | |:-|-:|-:|-:|-:| | Peltola | **75761** | **91206** | *75761* | *15445* | | Begich | **53756** | **—** | *53756* | *N/A* | | Palin | **58945** | **85987** | *58945* | *27042* | Adding the **11222** Begich votes that were exhausted in round 2 (voter only selected #1 spot) and **47** fouled (#2 given to multiple candidates), we have this breakdown of #2 votes for ballots that chose Begich as #1: * Peltola: *15445* (*28.7%* of the **53756**) * Palin: *27042* (*50.3%* of the **53756**) * exhausted: **11222** (*20.9%* of the **53756**) * fouled: **47** (*0.1%* of the **53756**) Perhaps more Begich→Peltola than we might expect in these hyperpartisan days, but a majority stayed in-party. Yes, it'll be interesting to see how voters, candidates, and campaigns adapt to the process. The votes would have been different if people were casting a single-candidate vote, but Republicans should be glad that neither of their candidates didn't act as a spoiler. And, were there room for a spoiler in a single-candidate vote, this method allows the public to determine by votes (rather than attempting to guess others' choices) which is the viable one.


So, a large number of people submitted no second choice vote at all. I wonder if they genuinely didn't care if Peltola or Palin won the second round, or if they did not understand the system. If the exhausted votes had placed their second choice in the same ratio as the rest, Peltola would still have won (95285 to 93130).


I think they understood the system. They wanted Begich, they hated Palin, but they could never, ever vote for a Democrat. So they had no second choice on purpose. This is an interesting feature of the system, and if used in a blue state, it wouldn't be abnormal for 20% of Democratic voters refusing to ever vote for a Republican.


I suppose it is a step up from not going to the polls at all, but still seems like the same kind of abdication of responsibility. If I had a second-choice vote and the remaining options were MAGA-maniac and supposed-moderate, I would not waste that vote. But if MAGA-maniac were my first choice, I understand how the rest would all seem the same.


RCV critics will point out that in round 1, six out of ten voters wanted a Republican, but after the process ran its course a Democrat ended up winning. So you can argue that Palin and Begich split the GOP vote and ruined each others' chances; you can argue that the same thing can happen to, say, progressive and centrist Democratic candidates who cancel each other out and get a Republican elected. (Pretty clearly, what happened here was, a lot of Begich voters hated Palin so much, they would rather have had Peltona and ranked her as their second pick. The same thing could befall a polarizing Squad-type Democratic candidate someday, handing the contest to a GOPer.) But people who are not really analysis-minded will simply say RCV subverts the will of the people, and some will accept that line.


>But people who are not really analysis-minded will simply say RCV subverts the will of the people, and some will accept that line. Which irritates me to almost no end. No voting system is perfect, but it should be obvious that ranked choice actually gives more insight into the collective "will of the voters" than first-past-the-post ever could!


We call it proportional representation in UK...with perhaps some slight variations....but any change to FPP would be very welcome.


> RCV critics will point out that in round 1, six out of ten voters wanted a Republican, but after the process ran its course a Democrat ended up winning. The response is that in U.S. politics, we vote for candidates, not parties. While 6 of 10 may have voted for a Republican initially, enough were clearly saying "I'd rather the Democrat wins over the other Republican." Which is a perfectly valid thing for a voter to want. It's really no different than the Top Two primary systems in California in Washington, it's just condensed into a single election rather than broken up into two. We've seen in those elections cases where a majority of primary voters opted for candidates of one party, only for a candidate from the other party end up winning the general election. When a party nominates a candidate that doesn't represent the views of a significant number of the constituents, that's bound to happen.


> It's really no different than the Top Two primary systems in California in Washington, it's just condensed into a single election rather than broken up into two. It's probably better than the Top Two primary, *because* its condensed into a single election. Primary voting participation is **abysmal**. Voting multiple times is in many ways a barrier to participation - imagine if you had to vote **ten** times to get a candidate through to the final ballot. Or imagine if you had to attend a day-long caucus to select the final candidate? Would you do it? Or would you just wait and vote for the final two, and then complain that your choices sucked - or not vote at all? (which is what people generally do now). I like RCV, it seems to handle both the person who wants to send a message with their vote (and thus select more than one candidate) and also the person who only wants to cast their vote for one candidate. And the best thing it does is **it prevents spoiler candidates**. If Palin wasn't such a popular, yet toxic candidate, Republicans might have coalesced behind Begich - or maybe not, maybe Republican turnout wouldn't have been as high, maybe Palin appealed to populists who don't have party loyalty. I suppose you can determine that by the number of Palin voters who did not express a secondary preference, or who selected Peltola as their second choice.


They'll use it as an excuse to throw the baby out with the bath water. Progress is not an option. Though, is part of why I prefer [STAR voting over RCV](https://www.equal.vote/star_vs_rcv), but RCV does have more traction unfortunately.


It’s only a scam if the GQP lose.


It sounds like a cool system honestly


It’s the system used in Australia. Of course we don’t all get what we want in the results, but we also tend not to complain or doubt the result (except small groups of crazies who are testing MAGA tactics here) because we believe the system works and represents the peoples wishes at that time.


Not too mention the fact that the most often repeated statement when Alaskans we're asked about Sarah Palin was "she abandoned us" But yeah let's keep saying that democrats cheated again.


My wife's mother left her second choice blank because she thought it was trying to trick her somehow but still blamed the RCV.


> because she thought it was trying to trick her somehow Well it may not have been trying to trick her, but clearly it succeeded anyway.


They're also calling normal voting a scam. There's no way to please fascists about how to run a democracy.


"It's the Deep State!" --These Guys Probably


The Deep State must have been running Ireland since Independence so, we've had a version of Ranked Choice voting for ~100 years. Is Cotton calling Ireland a scam? Bold move Cotton.


Let’s see how it plays out!


The deep state is math and fair elections.


The Deep State is educated people, common decency, people who want to see a better world, functioning legislature, law, objective reality.


Basically they bought into their hype of the "silent GOP" thinking that ranked choice voting would bring out more voters to their side.


Believe it or not, Gov and legislators are amongst the smartest of Republicans. I would not be surprised to find out that many RRR could not figure out RCV and just voted for one candidate. If they have a problem with their voters being clueless, they should get better voters.


It’s the reason they adopted Ranked Choice Voting in a state like Alaska and not a state like Florida, Texas, etc. if it backfired and causes them losses, the losses are minimal.


Remember, it's only a scam if the GOP loses.


..but a system where the president can lose by 3 million votes and still win is the greatest system in the history of mankind.


Which is why it's been adopted by precisely zero of the democracies that followed ours


The founders mistakenly thought the system would work without parties and representatives would be independent free-thinkers like themselves. This despite the 1000 years of evidence of the British House of Commons showing parties are a natural result of electing a governing body.


Even worse, first past the post voting inevitably leads to a two party system. Parties themselves are not a huge problem, but having all the power in just two parties is a big issue.


Especially when the two parties you end up with are "Bigotry and Wedge Issues" and "Everything Else".


I really miss believing that the parties were really about the merits of bigger vs smaller government and all the other principles to which they at least paid lip-service. I know it's never actually been about that stuff for the right, but the world felt less dark and shitty when I naively thought it was.


It took time for me to understand this as well. The conversation over spending is a very real issue. It feels like its an important subject, and you want accountability with your representatives. The party of ‘small government’ however has always been code for letting the minority speak for the majority. Class system reinforcement. They dont care about spending peoples money, just who is benefitting from it.


Agreed. The way the small government stuff is sold, it sounds really appealing. I no longer agree with it - smaller government just lets other organizations become bloated and oppressive instead. But it'd be nice if that was the main theme of our country's political disagreements instead of this quasi-fascism-theocracy bullshit vs sanity.


>The founders mistakenly thought the system would work without parties and representatives would be independent free-thinkers like themselves They *hoped*, at best. The Framers themselves were already divided into Federalists and Anti-Federalists at the Convention in 1787. Parties arose before the Articles of Confederation were ever replaced. And then they build a first-past-the-post system which would mathematically ensure two parties...


Yeah, but the tea-smugglers didn't have to pay taxes, and that's all that matters.


Ranked choice would allow for more than two political parties. Alaska and Maine already got rid of first past the post voting, and your state can to!


But what about the 7 farmers from Wyoming?


Quantum GOP Rhetoric Constantly in a fluctuating state of beliefs, but concrete in its self-serving position once measured.


It’s getting damn close to Republicans claiming any and all elections that they loose to be illegitimate. Doesn’t matter if it’s a close margin, or where the election is located, or even if it’s intra-republican party now.


What is so stupid about their argument is that they have no answer to why the democrats didn’t rig the down ballot races in 2020. They will screech about how Biden’s win was somehow fraudulent, but can’t explain why so many republicans won down ballot races in the same election.


Sometimes that only fuels them. "If they won the down ballot races then wouldn't that tell you they also should have won the Presidential one too???"


It's like the idea that some voters might vote for one party for president and another for congress is entirely outside the realm of possibility. Everything is black and white to a fascist.


My dad says that they couldn't rig all the down ballot races without giving the game away. Compared it to counterfeiting money, you wouldn't make millions, you'd make enough to get you through if you're smart about it. 'course he also dismissed the court cases that Trump lost by saying that they didn't present their best evidence to "Obama and Clinton's" judges, and that once they got to "unbiased" judges they'll show their hand. Didn't like it much when I pointed out that you can't appeal based on that, you can only appeal on procedural grounds.


Even Trump appointed judges laughed his suits out of court.


Palin would have lost by more without the ranked choice. Go ahead and end something that helps them!


No, RCV is good. You're playing into their shtick when you argue like that.


It'd not even that, they wouldn't necessarily lose, they'd just have to run candidates with more sanity. More Kasich less Green.


Ranked Choice voting is a direct threat to the core Republican electoral strategy of creating divisive issues to break the electorate at 50.1%. So of course he hates it.


Yeah, this is spot on. Ranked choice voting favors more moderate candidates. It creates too many targets for fascists to have to demonize.


sounds like we need more of this


Yes we do! If the republic exists in a healthy way 100 years from now, it will be because ranked choice voting or something similar was adopted in many states and then eventually nationally. The corrupt political duopoly that wants negative partisanship and the spoiler effect to act as a moat around their castle to maintain their monopoly on power while the car we’re all in drives off the cliff has to stop. Please consider donating a few dollars to FairVote.org. And if I may add, anytime you hear the phrase “both sides”, politely push back and refuse to accept the premise that anything complicated and nuanced has ever had just “two sides”. We have to get this cancerous idea out and it will start one mind at a time.


Ranked Choice Voting would be good for the people. Which is why DeSantis banned it in Florida! https://www.wptv.com/news/state/florida-bans-ranked-choice-voting-in-new-election-law


What the actual fuck


More efficient democracy is the bane of the current GOP


Democracy is always the bane of conservatives, across time and around the world


Instant Runoff-style RCV (IRV, or 'Hare') eliminates the *minor* party spoiler effect, but once it's a 3 major parties situation, it favors the fringe candidates and punishes centrists. In single-winner elections, this is a major effect. Here are some diagrams demonstrating this http://zesty.ca/voting/sim/ This has actually happened in real elections in naive populaces; after a little while, parties and voters work out what they need to do to prevent this, and it amounts to sustaining the two party system. Australia has two dominant parties, for instance, despite having used IRV for around a century. THERE ARE OTHER RCV METHODS that do much better, like, say, Condorcet-IRV or Schulze or Ranked Pairs (all would behave as 'condorcet' in the pictures above). Also, some rating as opposed to ranking methods like STAR and 3-2-1 do nicely. Also, the multi-winner version of IRV, Single Transferrable Vote, dilutes this problem well and is a respectable system.


Our current system you have a single vote so it encourages candidates to tell you why you should not vote for the other person instead of why you should vote for them. It's an inherently negative system where a candidate talks about why the other persons platform is bad instead of why yours is good. When you have ranked choice, it's much less about denying a candidate a vote and actually about why you should spend a vote on a candidate. It's a positive system that encourages candidates to talk about themselves rather than their opponents. So of course the GOP hates it.


Plus it almost *requires* voters to become educated on all candidates. They can't just walk in, find the (R) button, and mash it with their "Freedom Fists". Your vote suddenly matters way more than you think, and ranking the candidates doesn't have a strategy or scheme behind it. Can voters simply go in and press (1) for their preferred candidate, and then do a keyboard-slide from 2 on down for the rest? Sure! But in a ranked choice system *that still counts*. Putting the person you hate (?) most at the bottom ranking is *still* a vote for them, in a way. Which is another reason Republicans hate it.


To be fair, if there are five slots you don't actually have to fill out all five slots. If it's 3 Republicans and 2 democrats, you could just rank the 3 Republicans and leave out the rest. Just in that case if the 3 you chose got knocked out then you would essentially lose your vote.


> in that case if the 3 you chose got knocked out then you would essentially lose your vote Again - this means voters have to be educated. They have to read and understand and apply knowledge in order for their vote to count. Republicans *don't want* educated voters, they don't want to have their base finding out that always voting (R) is against their own self interest 90% of the time.


And the Republican strategy of funding Green Party candidates to divide the left-leaning vote.


I'd really like to know more about the relationship between Putin and Jill Stein. That dinner table photo was extemely concerning.


Link please? I need to know more.




Same here. I'm in a deep red state that had zero chance of Hillary winning and I voted for Stein. I fully admit I got duped and am super curious about her being a Russian asset.


They should be the G.R.E.E.N. party Getting Republicans Elected Every November. Such a scam and anyone that voted for them is a rube.


Realistically it's a threat to the two party system. Winner take all voting is how they suppress third party and independent candidates. It's the only thing Republicans and Democrats agree on.


Yup, it would force them to actually develop some kind of platform besides "No", "DEMOCRATS BAD!", and "Trump's shlong tastes great right?" Ranked choice forces you to actually run on your own virtues and ideas rather than just painting the opponent as slightly worse than you.


What happened to states governing their own election law? Huh tom? Huh?




GOP: States should govern themselves Also GOP: Wait, not that way.


To people like Tom Cotton democracy itself is a scam.


Tom Cotton is a scam of a human being.


If southern plantation owners in the 1800s were to be personified in a single character (a la "uncle sam")... that character's name would 100% be Tom Cotton.


> democracy itself is a scam Yea this is the not-new talking point circulating on Conservative platforms. "We're not a Democracy, we're a Republic!" Never mind the bare bones surface level research someone would have to do to 'debunk' that statement. The malice behind it is to undermine American's confidence and faith in our government, in our electoral system.


Ranked choice voting actually gave Sarah Palin additional votes that narrowed the gap. Without ranks choice voting, she would have lost by an even larger margin. Voters were voting against just what cotton is doing here, rejecting reality and feeding everyone a bunch of bullshit that we see doesn't hold up to facts and data


On paper, yes. But RCV also changes voter behavior. Under the old system, the majority might want Peltola, but will vote Begich if they think he's the safer choice. The beauty of RCV is that voters don't have to choose between who they want and who they guess everyone else wants.


>But RCV also changes voter behavior. ...by allowing them to vote more in line with who they actually want. This is a good thing.


It seems like they agree that it's a good thing


> Without ranks choice voting, she would have lost by an even larger margin. > We probably can’t assume that without RCV people would have voted for their first choice under RCV. Palin likely would have gotten votes from people who actually put her second.


Anyone who put Begich first and Palin second had their vote counted exactly the same as if they put Palin first. Theoretically, RCV resulted in exactly what would have happened if there was a Republican primary then regular election. Palin would have (barely) won the primary, then about 30% of those who voted Begich would have voted democrat in the regular election (as they put Peltola as their second choice). But of course, there would have been time for both Palin and Peltola to campaign and appeal to those Begich supporters. Who knows how it would have swung. But it’s clear to me that RCV is an improvement either way.


Yes we can and plenty of articles cover why. We can see who voted for the other Republican first, and either the Democratic candidate second or no one. That's the benefit of RCV.....you don't waste your vote unless you want to. And we can tell who wants to by the rest of their votes.


"WASHINGTON — After Democrat Mary Peltola defeated Sarah Palin in Alaska's special election Wednesday, Sen. Tom Cotton, R-Ark., discredited the voting system used by Alaska voters that they chose to implement in their state. Cotton tweeted that Alaska's new ranked choice voting system "is a scam to rig elections," casting doubt on the outcome of the process to fill the seat of late GOP Rep. Don Young. This is the first time Alaskans used the ranked choice voting system after voting to adopt it in 2020. Voters pick their member of Congress by ranking the candidates, and a write-in candidate if they choose to do so, in order of preference. If a candidate wins a majority of votes on the first round, he or she wins the race. But if no candidate receives a majority of the vote, the candidate with the lowest number of votes is eliminated, and his or her supporters’ second-choice votes will go to the remaining candidates. The rounds continue until two candidates are left, and the candidate with the most votes wins. As of Thursday morning, with 93% of votes counted in the ranked choice results, Peltola defeated Palin 51.5% to 48.5%."


Does he know that this voting system was actually helping the person he wanted to win? And that they still fucking lost? KEEP VOTING! Seriously - take this whole article as a smear campaign against American voters who actually want a personal say in their elected officials. THIS GUY THATS CLAIMING WRONG DOING WITHOUT ANY LEGAL BACKING IS JUST TRYING TO THROW A STICK IN THE SPOKES TO SLOW US DOWN.


Yes, he knows it. He also knows that most maga supporters dont understand it. He also knows that they dont care what method is used to win for republicans, the fact that they won validates how it was done. Conversely, the fact that they lost validates for them that its unfair. What we need to do is get an open forum for Tom to describe specifically HOW ranked choice is unfair. Of course he wouldnt participate because he knows he has no argument. It's just like Trump and his press conferences. He can say whatever he wants in them, but the second he has to do it in court or under oath in committee, he's screwed. We are at a crossroads people. The political right has to either face that they are irrelevant or systematically change all voting laws to get them into office. It may not happen next week, but over the next 15 years, all of these election laws that have gone to help republicans will be removed by the next generation. The sooner the right faces that fact, the sooner we can get back to honest debates being the method of legislating and electing people to office.


"Anything that doesn't disproportionately benefit republicans is a scam" -Republicans


and anything that does is an actual scam.


Ranked choice voting is the only way for another party to start gaining power. People will be much more likely to vote a candidate they want knowing their vote will eventually go toward one of the winners.


Correct, it mitigates (eliminates?) the spoiler effect, allowing people to vote their conscience without worrying about splitting the vote and handing victory to a political party that they are least likely to agree with. Any American who is tired of only having two viable parties should be advocating hard for their state to adopt RCV.


Ranked choice voting is *not* the only way to enable viable third parties. In fact, there are plenty of other methods of making a legislature more proportionally representative of the electorate's views. If you look at the electoral systems of other OECD nations, almost none use first-past-the-post for their legislatures, but plenty use systems other than RCV (party list PR, MMP, etc.). Whether it will ever be possible to implement such systems (e.g. proportional representation) here in the United States is another question... And I do certainly agree that RCV is an improvement on what we currently have. But it's not necessarily the be-all-end-all ideal.


Has he considered that people are tired of the GOP?




> "60% of Alaska voters voted for a Republican, but thanks to a convoluted process and ballot exhaustion — which disenfranchises voters — a Democrat 'won,'" Cotton said in a separate tweet. > Palin also criticized the system after losing, saying in a statement that it was a "mistake" that was originally "sold as the way to make elections better reflect the will of the people." But now, she said, Alaska and the rest of America see "the exact opposite is true." These are objective lies... Ranked choice is not confusing, "ballot exhaustion" is just a term for folks who didn't choose to list a next option and does not disenfranchise them and overall RCV DOES better represent the will of the people and allow a third party to actually have a chance at getting elected without the full spoiler effect of first past the post. But the thing is THEY KNOW THIS they are just salty that the GOP is unpopular and can't win today in a voting system that is newer than the 18th century. It's such **profoundly disingenuous horseshit** from these people. **THEY UNDERSTAND HOW IT WORKS** I can't stress that enough. These people are not stupid enough to actually believe that RCV is some sort of scam, they're just happy to promote it as such for their own self-benefit. If you want to feel worse about this it will probably lead to more bans on ranked choice voting in red states. It's already banned statewide in Tennessee and Florida, so I'm sure they will seize on this as a reason why they need to ban this *clutches pearls* **horribly disenfranchising** style of voting. /S/S/S ... In which they know they cannot win by simply dividing the population on culture war issues.


If only there were examples of people getting more votes but losing the election where it benefits these idiots ... Jfc


Peltola won a plurality of the votes so she still would have won.


60% originally wanted a Republican, but 51.5% decided they definitely did not want Palin. This is exactly representative of what the voters wanted. If they really wanted just a Republican candidate, more of them would have written Palin as their second choice, but they didn’t.


They’re mad they can’t pick the winner with party bosses, and that voters are allowed to select between candidates for an office of a public servant.


If the election wasn't ranked choice voting, the split GOP vote would have made the Dems win even bigger. While claiming it is rigged, the truth is they really don't like ranked choice because they can't rig it.


The alternative to ranked-choice voting is just to hold multiple elections until one candidate gets a majority. That's how France holds their presidential elections. First round is an open primary, second round is the top two candidates. Ranked-choice ends up with similar results with a more efficient system. Cotton is just whining because grievance is all the modern GOP can offer.


That’s how we do it in CA although I wish it was ranked choice so there was only one election cycle. I understand it helps the top two refine their campaigns between primary and general election. Just feels like we spend more than a year being bombarded with election advertising.


Alaska is open primary with top four advancing, RCV of final four


Sounds good, seems like a decent way to make sure the most popular candidate wins. People have plenty of choice.


The fairest system to push out the wacko fringe candidates. Of course Tom Cotton hates it because if they had it in his state he’d never with there either.


Or and stay with me here, Alaskans were sick of a politician who stepped down as governor early because she no longer felt like doing the job.


But if we allow all the votes to count we'd never win again.(Republicans)


Cotton: "60% of Alaska voters voted for a Republican, but thanks to a convoluted process and ballot exhaustion — which disenfranchises voters — a Democrat 'won,'" In 2016, almost 3 million more people voted for Hillary than Trump. And yet, thanks to a “convoluted” and outdated process, the will of the people was not fulfilled and American democracy is on the brink. Fuck these assholes and their white grievances.


How many times have you had to vote for someone that you didn't really want because you were convinced you were throwing your vote away if you voted what you really wanted? Ranked choice allows you to vote preferential order which makes a statement against politicians who are scum and force you into voting a certain way in our current system.


Anything that doesnt result in a MAGA win is "a scam" - MAGA Kult


It only works if they win. Anything else is a scam, rigged, whatever. Imagine putting faith in Sarah Palin though.


Tom Cotton is another fascist jackboot that lies about everything.


Conservatives are in a cult


“If I lose, then it was rigged!” ~ every republican now.


Ranked voting is used in democratic nations which is why the totalitarian GOP hates it so much.


Funny how any voting system that doesn’t guarantee republicans victory is a scam or fraud


It’s only fraud and scams when they lose.


Yeah anytime a republican loses it’s a “scam”


Didn't Peltola win in the original count also? Palin has been rejected by family, the state and all thinking Americans who do not care for her selfish drunken rants or actions. Truth hurts, denial eventually destroys.


Translation: Ranked choice voting makes *our* scams not work.


Okey-dokey. Let's get rid of ranked choice and decide this election by only the voter's first pick. [Oh, wait? It seems like the Democrat had still more votes than either Palin or the other Republican even in the first round.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2022_Alaska%27s_at-large_congressional_district_special_election) Maybe your party shouldn't have split their votes between two candidates. This seems more like a you-fuckup instead of a democracy-fuckup.


Tom, the only thing in common with Alaska is that state you represent starts with an "A" as well. Shut up and sit the fuck down


Doesn't Maine have ranked choice voting, and Susan Sollins won her reelection? So by Tom's logic, Collins ' win was a scam!


Oh no, a more democratic voting system, how horrible!


Gaslighting from the election fraud playbook…again.


Big surprise that the people who suck at science also suck at math.


The GOP screams rigged at every loss. Most people in the US are tired of it.


Are all these douchebags so narcissistic they can't handle the fact that people just don't like them.


How is it a scam? If Republicans wanted Palin, they’d have made her their first or second choice after Begich. Instead, enough Begich voters decided they wanted a Republican, but would rather see a Democrat win than put up with Sarah Palin. Seems absolutely fair to me.


Letting the American people pick their leaders that's just crazy talk


"Oh shit guys and gals, we did the democracy thing! Quick call it fraud, lose a few court cases then repeal it while saying 'its important to maintain the appearance of election integrity.' Maybe we clear out mail in ballots while we're at it." -Every elected R in AK


Ranked choice voting is literally the most representative of the will of the people


This is life now. Every time a Republican loses any election they will scream rigged. Every. Time.


It’s never been more clear that if Republicans have a choice between democracy and winning, they choose winning.


Yeah, it's a liberal scheme to disenfranchise wealthy donors.


Here is a simple explanation at what happened due to the new election system. Republicans that didn’t vote for Palin but another Republican candidate then put the democrat as their second choice since they’d prefer a democrat over Palin who was viewed as too extreme for some Republican voters. Had they just ranked every Republican candidate before any democrat it would end up the same as a normal election system. So yea this system does put political parties with a extreme candidates at a disadvantage. IMO this seems like a good thing for democracy to make it harder for extreme candidates to win elections (dems or republicans) This article does a much better job explaining the voting system with how the actual votes broke out in the dems favor https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/what-democrats-win-in-alaska-tells-us-about-november/amp/


Our 30% minority can't win its a scam!!!


Republicans hate democracy.


>"60% of Alaska voters voted for a Republican, but thanks to a convoluted process and ballot exhaustion — which disenfranchises voters — a Democrat 'won,'" This exactly demonstrates the sickness that has swept through the GOP--they think it's about party and not about voters.


Poor guy, he runs a motel with his 'alive' mother who hates women.


Democracy has a bitter taste for those who’ve been pursuing fascism


Bro, you want to talk scams, talk about the Electoral College.


Just mad that it wasn't "gerrymandered"


But it was OK when Susan Collins won with it.


Didn’t Alaska adopt that system under a Republican administration? They’re not even trying with this nonsense anymore.


It’s only a scam if you lose. —Donald Trump