How can this be? Alaska votes Senate: 90% Republican, House: 51%
(media.greatawakening.win)
Comments (13)
sorted by:
Because of the stupid ass ranked choice thing Murkowski's people got implemented. It's hilarious that she will lose, too.
I am not confused about why the votes are split. (I understand ranked choice voting). What I don't get is how there can be 90% of votes go republican in the Senate race, but only 51% go Republican in the house.
I mean the same voters voted in both cases, and its unlikely that they prioritize republicans for the senate, but prioritize a democrat for the house...
As to your specific question, I agree Rank Choice is not the issue. The simple answer is that at least 40 percent of Lisa Murkowski's 43 percent consider her to be a more dependable and electable democrat than Patricia Chesbro. After all, she was continued in office 6 years ago by democrats as a write in candidate after being defeated in the republican primary and has represented them quite well.
Also, everybody, don't worry about the split republican vote. Due to ranked choice voting, the red votes will end up adding together on one of the red candidates
No it will not, unless voters choose the other candidate as their second choice. Many Alaskans, disgusted with the ranked choice voting system, either chose the same person all the way across, or made their choice and left the rest of the ovals blank. In both of those cases, no added votes would go to the other candidate.
That's a good point. I wonder how strong the effect is you've mentioned. We'll see
After read two different explanations twice, I have headache. Anything this complicated seems like total bullshit to me.
I know it seems complicated - I will explain it concisely: The candidate with least votes gets eliminated. The votes for the eliminated candidate shift to the voter's next preferred candidate. This continues until only one candidate remains.
And you sir, win the prize for common sense tonight. Thank you - it IS total bullshit.
Ranked voting, which NV is considering adopting. It's awful, folks! Run far away from this!
What you don't see in this graphic is the party affiliation of the candidates. This is the "beauty" of ranked choice voting if you are destined to lose in a regular head-to-head, legitimate vote: In the House vote, Mary Peltola is D, Sarah Palin and Nick Begich are both R. Ranked choice voting splits the two Republicans and lets the underdog win. Add up Palin's and Begich's votes and the total is larger than Peltola's.
In the Senate race, Tshibaka and Murkowski are both R's (even though the Republicans have censured Lisa and don't consider her one of their own). The Democratic candidate, Chesbro, is so far behind that she isn't significant. BUT none of these numbers are final. Since neither Tshibaka or Murkowski got 50% +1 of the vote, people's second candidate choice will be added to these numbers. One additional note: One thing Republicans suck at is defining a strategy and sticking to it - something the Democrats do very well. Notice that the D's have only ONE candidate on the ballot. The Republicans have anywhere from two to three, splitting the R vote. Sorting out these folks is something best done in PRIMARIES, folks. But the R's are too stupid and too independent to come together and agree that only the highest vote getter in the primary goes to the general election.
So this is a long way from being over. And yes, ranked choice voting should be outlawed. Our state legislators are working on that very thing as we speak. Oh, and none of this takes the inevitable cheating into account... and we know it was there.
It probably can't, without fraud. Unless it is tied up in that Rank choice somehow. I'm not sure I understand that.
But what is the latest with Murkowski? Wouldn't it be wonderful if she lost.
Rank choice voting