The Division of Elections has mailed out a second informational postcard to voters to show them how ranked-choice voting works. It’s something the division does to help people who are confused by the odd voting system that Alaska now uses.
This time, unlike the Division’s official voter instruction sent earlier this fall, the candidates are listed as Candidate A, Candidate B, Candidate C and Candidate D.
On the prior instructional offering from the Division of Elections, a candidate named “Harris” was listed in the presidential column, and the division, for unknown reasons, illustrated for voters how to mark “Harris” first for president.
That caught the eye of critics who said that the Division of Elections appeared to be trying to swing the vote toward Kamala Harris.
Division Director Carol Beecher has been explaining on talk radio that it was essentially an error and that the new flyer corrects the problem with unintentional bias.
The Division made another mistake in the official voter pamphlet, when it listed House District candidate Mia Costello as a Democrat. The division sent a correction to all voters in that district showing Costello as a Republican.
Another error that is being seen in the polling booths is that the Division of Elections explains the process of ranking people but does not clarify that someone can vote ONE AND DONE in the first ranking and the vote will be accepted. Let all know that you do not have to rank if you choose not to rank. One and Done suggestions for Eagle River / Chugiak: Trump, Begich, Goecker, and Saddler – NO on 1 and Yes on 2.
You have to love it when a GOP Administration with their own people in charge screw-up, and then want to cast blame on the Democrats. Incompetence is in no short supply in the Dunleavy Administration.
Except that the majority of lower level employees do not get “changed out” with a new administration. Only a few commissioners are removed. So the whole Dunleavy administration can’t be blamed for every problem or clerical error.
Gretchen:
You have to realize AfF is a leftist. He actually thinks the President is in absolute control of the country, and the Governor is to blame for everything he does not like. It is the simple way of looking at something as complex as a Statewide government. Much the same way a child will view the Government.
The very idea that the person in charge does not have final OK for every action taken by every employee has not crossed his mind in any way.
Division of Elections can NOT be trusted
This is America! An errata sheet is always needed whenever a public servant issues anything in writing! But as they say, “I’m just another political hack but I’m trustworthy!
Edit: “I’m just another political hack, but I’m trustworthy!”
Wow incompetent public employees.
Who is going to pay for this? The taxpayer of course not the incompetent public employee.
Odd how the “mistakes” are all in the leftward direction!
‘RANKED CHOICE VOTING:’
‘HOW TO MARK YOUR BALLOT’
‘FILL IN ONLY ONE OVAL PER CANDIDATE, IN EACH COLUMN’
‘You do not have to rank all the candidates, but it won’t hurt your first choice candidate if you do.’
Ah, the ‘soft’ sell…. you can ‘safely’ rank other candidates as it does not affect your first choice, so go ahead, fill in the other ovals, in each column, and do not worry your pretty little head about it, because THIS is how to mark your ballot.
All other methods are a mistake, as shown….
Oh, and by the way, it shall take 15 days before the ‘Final results tabulated and unofficial results reported’
So, which is it? Are the ‘Final results tabulated’ or are the ‘unofficial results reported’?
The ‘Final results tabulated’ are the ‘official’ results, are they not?
Or are the ‘unofficial results reported’ based upon what is needed to alter the ‘Final results tabulated’ so as to come unto a desired outcome?
This is a shell game, whence none of the shells hold under them the pea even after the shuffling is done, and the pea is held within hand until the shell is chosen so as to identify it as the empty shell, and with sleight of hand, the pea magically appears, through the hand, into the ‘chosen’ shell.
The voters are afraid of the rules designated by the RCV, thinking somehow that their votes can be disenfranchised by not following the ‘rules’ of RCV, and that is EXACTLY what they want you to think!
First, vote your first choice. Anything after that is either very simple, or a cluster fart.
There is NO need to choose any other candidate, no matter how the RCV proponents may wish it so. No second choice? No points! And so on and so on.
Mine own personal choice is to promote mine own candidate within an oval filled across the board, within a straight line, so as to allow no possibility of confusion as to whom my choice of candidate is. Again, this is NOT against RCV rules and will NOT disenfranchise your first vote.
Look, the proponents of RCV WANT you to choose other ovals so as to gain them the points they do not deserve. Choose NONE of them, either by a singular oval choice, or a multiple oval choice across the board, but with NO other ovals filled out.
This is the time, and this is the opportunity to not only shut down the leftist movement within our City, State, and Nation, but to shut it down for generations to come, so that it becomes the microism of clown shows that it is.
I think the results have to be called “unofficial” until they are certified by whatever Government Official that holds the responsibility for certification. So, even though the numbers are not going to change, they remain unofficial until officially signed off by the approving official.
I understand that CBMTTek, truly I do. but here is the problem for me, at least.
It is the terminology ‘Final results tabulated, and unofficial results reported’, rather than final results certified, within said numbers can change between unofficial and certified, in which numbers CAN change, as has been shown within the past, within many instances whereas ballots have been ‘found’ after the fact.
Yes, I am a cynic, but I have been proven correct more often than once within the aspect of not election fraud, but of voter fraud.
I filled in one oval in the 1st Choice column, then I filled in all the ovals in the 2nd Choice column, which I believe is equivalent to your method. Is there anything I can do to prevent someone from voiding my 1st Choice by their surreptitiously filling in an extra oval in my 1st Choice column?
No, Kenaijoe, that is not even CLOSE to what is my own method. You gave choice unto a second choice, which is NOT your first choice.
And no, your first choice is still your first choice, and shall be so until your first choice is eliminated, and your second choice holds true, if that is the case, but within the fact that you chose multiple candidates within your second choice, none of them shall hold unto a valid vote.
That stated, I believe that your actual descriptor of your vote is a moniker, or mimicker, of mine own stance, or method of voting, within your perceived stance, and holds no water, nor gravity.
Try again, amateur.
From your original post:
Mine own personal choice is to promote mine own candidate within an oval filled across the board, within a straight line, so as to allow no possibility of confusion as to whom my choice of candidate is. Again, this is NOT against RCV rules and will NOT disenfranchise your first vote.
If I were to use YOUR voting method, only my first choice would count, correct? If I were to use MY voting method, only my first choice would count, correct? Our voting methods are equivalent because both methods end up with the same result, correct?
Regardless of all, Republicans and others fed up with Democrat nonsense:
Vote Trump only
Vote Begich only
Vote your state representative or senator only
Vote NO on 1
Vote YES on 2
Another blunder is that neither the instructions, nor the envelope, for absentee ballots indicated that additional postage was required. “The News” states that a ballot without correct postage will still be accepted – but will it? How can we be sure our vote is really counted when one is now absent from Alaska until after the election?
The instruction sheet that was included in my vote-by-mail package specifically states that one must apply $1.46 postage to the envelope. Are you saying the $1.46 amount is wrong? What is the correct amount?
Apparently $1.46 is the correct amount, but I don’t think that was included in the instructions that were sent to early/foreign absentee voters. I’m out of the country right now so I can’t verify but I’m usually pretty careful about reading instructions, especially when I’m using the format for the first time. To their credit, the Division of Elections did verify receipt and counting of my ballot.