Alaskans for Honest Elections, which is battling Alaskans for Better Elections, turned in petitions to the Division of Elections today with about 42,000 signatures of Alaskans from every House district in the state. The group said it beat the deadline to turn in the petitions by a month.
The Division of Elections must now go through all of the signatures to ensure they are valid, registered voters in Alaska, and that their names correspond to the district they said they live in.
Alaskans for Honest Elections says it has 150% of the signatures needed to appear on a statewide ballot. Whether the repeal of ranked-choice voting will be on the primary or general election ballot depends on when the Alaska Legislature adjourns this year.
“We did the impossible, with 700 volunteers. We led the drive to get the required signatures. We did this for fractions of what they did. They hired an out of state firm and flew professional signature gatherers from all over the country to Alaska to get their signatures We used Alaskans, led by Alaskans. The Pro-RCV group is taking money from the 1630 Fund which is directly linked to Arabella Advisors. Even the New York Times labels them as “Dark Money” Let’s beat them in 2024, make sure to tell everyone to show up and vote in 2024,” Alaskans for Honest Elections said in a statement.
They’ll be up against massive amounts of Outside money. Alaska’s ranked-choice voting system, first used in 2022, is the darling of Democrats nationwide, bought and paid for by groups such as the Sixteen-Thirty Fund, and they will be loathe to allow it to be repealed in Alaska just as they are trying to spread it to other states, with Alaska as the poster child for its alleged merits.
I never saw a petition gatherer, but I definitely would have signed if given the opportunity.
There were places to go and sign that were available for the past 6 months to over a year. It should be back on the ballot to vote on (unless Satan figures out some way to stop it). Vote to get rid of rank choice voting!
RCV needs to go, I think he is just making a point.
When weed was on the ballot you couldn’t swing a stick without hitting a petition gatherer.
The smell is still on my clothes from the last time.
I’ve not seen one for repealing the RCV, why?
Are you kidding? I know a few people that were involved with it that were out at different places gathering signatures. A few people did go door knocking, but not many. People were standing in parking lots next to highways collecting signatures. Unpaid volunteers were out there around the state gathering signatures. Guess you were not paying attention to the articles telling you where you could go to sign or get more information???
Alaskans for Honest Elections did a good job in collecting signatures and outperformed (for FREE) the paid zombies that were pushing rank choice voting.
Signed it outside of Carr’s.
Signature gatherers did a great job.
They probably would have 80-100K signatures had they gotten people out waving the books around. Set up a table in front of REI for example. (Oh… wait… maybe a different shop. Unlikely that leftist run organization would allow a petition for freedom.)
But, instead you had to go the the website, and search for locations. Then go out of your way to get there. (Seriously, unless you have a reason to be at 76th and Old Seward, no one is going to Duanes Antiques.)
.
If this fails to get on the ballot, it will be because the people pushing it could not be bothered to work harder, and get the signature books out there in more places.
They were in front of REI as well as Carrs that I saw. Screaming at anyone who didn’t want to sign like crazy people.
Got a date for when they were in front of REI?
I am in that area pretty much every day, never saw them.
We needed 26,000 and we were able to get 42,000. We were able to get more than the paid signature gathering of the “dark money” group and you are here to tell me I somehow could have done a better job.
Thanks Captain Hindsight
I would have loved to sign it, but I couldn’t find it anywhere. I even emailed the group and got no answer.
It was not very hard to find a place to sign
CMBTTek, did you offer to get involved? If not, then shut up. Kind of like voting – if you voted, you have a right to bitch. If you did not vote, shut up.
I knocked on every door in my neighborhood, signature book in hand.
.
Why did you assume otherwise?
Well it looks like it should be on the ballot. Maybe you will have better luck finding a voting booth
RCV is simply manipulation of our voting process. We saw it in action with both Peltola and Murkowski and look where it’s gotten us. A very simple formula. Field two Democrats, have one drop out at the last minute, and the two Republicans split votes. Instant Democrat win.
If the voters who picked the republicans would list the other Republican as their second choice, RCV would combine their votes for the one of them who got more first choice votes. Vote splitting like that is one of the things RCV *helps* with. It’s in a plurality-wins system that vote splitting is much more of a problem.
One election out of many failed due to a spoiler, or two R’s splitting the vote. The plurality system is actually more prone to such spoiler failures than RCV is. So what do we do to prevent that? We use primaries, but primaries are also likely to cause their own version of election failures which may be more common than spoilers.
Consequently, using a primary to remove Murkowski from the general election ballot, even though she is the most preferred candidate of all voters, is indeed a form of manipulation of the voting process. The previous system suffered more from such manipulation than this top 4 system.
Furthermore, I doubt anyone can engineer RCV elections to consistently generate spoilers that work in their favor, or that anyone is actually doing that. So “manipulation” doesn’t seem like the right term or concept. I don’t think D’s were knowledgable or experienced enough about RCV to attempt that in 2022, and maybe never could.
It’ll be interesting to see the knots the legislature ties itself into attempting to block this effort.
I would predict a complaint by Scott Kendall against the repeal group made to APOC and the staff recommending a huge fine in an attempt to shut it down. The APOC staff is no longer a non partisan player. Cheers –
Already happened.
It was a lot easier than most people told us it would be. Even against all odds, it was done “By Alaskans, For Alaskans” they won’t win this time.
Thank you to all that showed up to help us when it mattered most.
No, thank you for the hard work and lots of great communication for the benefit of ridding our election system from the evil workings of old politicians that can’t stand freedom for others to vote and create better
Thank you for keeping at it Phil! If it makes it to the ballot, I’ll make sure to buy you dinner or pitch in for your well-deserved vacation! Thank you to all of the volunteers who got out there and got signatures.
Get ‘er done!
Leave it to radical leftist extremists to push for and adopt opaque and easily manipulable voting schemes like rank choice voting. That is why they defend it so vehemently: because they know that it favors them, and their all-consuming and sociopathic lust for power.
If RCV had worked in your favor instead of against in recent elections, you’d be all for it.
No, you are wrong, Hans.
But it is illustrative and informative that you say that, as by doing so you are simply and quite obviously projecting your OWN radical leftist “bend and break every rule to win at ANY price” mentality, and your glaring lack of principles and morals.
For radical leftists and statists like you, winning, meaning winning POWER, is the end-all and be-all of existence. Winning and exercising power, by ANY means necessary, no matter how corrupt and dishonest, would seem to be your reason d’etre.
I can tell you in no uncertain terms that I would not be for it in any way.
.
Seriously, I abhor open primaries. Abhor is probably not a hard enough word to describe how much I want to see open primaries disappear across the nation, no… the world. There is no justifiable reason at all for someone who is a registered Republican to have a say in the person the Democrats put on the ballot. And vice versa.
And, do not give me that “disenfranchising” voters BS. If you do not want to commit to a party, you knowingly lose the right to tell that party who represents them in the general election. Sorry, want to be undeclared, you get stuck with the candidates the Democrats, Republicans, or whatever other third party wants.
.
As to the “instant run off” that is also abhorrent to me.
Pick the wrong candidate, get two, three, maybe even four votes, but pick a different candidate and you only get one vote? Nope, sorry. One person one vote. Want to have some kind of a run off? OK, name the two candidates and have the run off a few weeks later, after the voters have time to digest the results.
.
If RCV favored every one of my preferred candidates, I would still hate it.
Winning through cheating, fraud, or manipulating a system is not winning. It does not result in the elected official the population wants.
“Pick the wrong candidate, get two, three, maybe even four votes, but pick a different candidate and you only get one vote? Nope, sorry. One person one vote.”
If by “pick a different candidate”, you mean “pick the winning candidate”, you only need one vote anyway. If you “pick the wrong candidate”, then you still get to participate and it’s still only one vote, it just transfers to your next choice. I don’t get why you keep saying it is more than one vote. It is almost like a real runoff, but faster, less expensive, and involves more voters. (Because turnout for runoffs is usually less). If it was a real runoff, and you had chosen someone who didn’t make the cut in the first round, you could still vote in the runoff. That would not give you more than one vote. Yes, it is true, you have to decide who you like and in what order up front and that is different, and it’s legit not to like that, though I don’t really see a problem with it, but in other respects it is the same or better.
if you get to make more than one mark for an open office on the ballot, it is more than one vote.
Trying to distort that reality into some kind of run off is disingenuous.
.
If they wanted to have run off elections, fine, do that. I am OK with it. The top to go to a run off.
RCV is not a run off. Never will be. Is not even “almost” like a run off. It is garbage that should never have been voted in. (And, to be frank, I am not convinced BM 2 passing was legit. Kind of weird how that last day of counting absentee ballots was almost 100% for BM2… Weird…)
.
If I do not get to evaluate the benefits and drawbacks of the candidates prior to voting in the run off (something that RCV denies me), I am not casting a knowledgeable vote.
.
RCV provides zero benefit. Only drawbacks.
More on this statement:
“you mean “pick the winning candidate”, you only need one vote anyway.”
.
Nope. If there is a run off you need to get out and vote for your preferred candidate again. Totally different than RCV. Worlds of difference.
.
Run off elections and RCV have nothing in common. In fact, one is a legit method of ensuring a candidate acceptable to at least half the voters gets elected, the other one is an abomination that results in everyone being upset.
“if you get to make more than one mark for an open office on the ballot, it is more than one vote.
Trying to distort that reality into some kind of run off is disingenuous.”
I disagree, and I think it is arguing semantics. If you are ok with getting to vote in runoffs, you are ok making multiple marks for one open office. That doesn’t mean you got more than one vote. In the end, your vote either counts for someone who gets elected, or it doesn’t count at all.
I’m not trying to distort that into anything else and despite how popular ad hominem arguments are on this blog calling it disingenuous a cheap shot.
How many people would change their minds about their choices between an election and a runoff? Not many, I’m guessing. But I suppose it could happen and it is a difference, albeit a small one IMO. I just don’t see it as abominable. Of course you’re free to hate it all you want.
There is a world of difference between a run off that is held a few weeks later, and RCV.
The two are night and day different.
.”In the end, your vote either counts for someone who gets elected, or it doesn’t count at all.”
Meaningless. It is about when the vote is cast, not whether your preferred candidate wins. And… My vote for a candidate that loses certainly counts. Saying otherwise is like saying a NFL quarterback should not get credit for the TD passes he threw on Sunday because his team did not win.
.
“How many people would change their minds about their choices between an election and a runoff? Not many, I’m guessing. ”
First of all, stop guessing. Supporting RCV because you “guess” about the consequences is a lousy position to take.
Unless your hypothetical “run off” has four candidates in it. (I do not know of a single State or City that has more than two), you will evaluate your run off vote.
RCV: Vote four times all at once.
Valid supportable election systems with a run off: Vote once for the candidate you want most, if there is no majority, vote at a later date for the candidate you prefer out of the two with the most votes.
.
Any attempt to claim the two systems are even remotely equivalent is garbage. It is a distortion into something else.
“It is about when the vote is cast, not whether your preferred candidate wins. And… My vote for a candidate that loses certainly counts.”
I think you know what I meant but I’ll explain it anyway: if you vote for a losing candidate, you are overruled and you do not receive the representation you would have if a candidate who you agree with had won.
I don’t agree that “when the vote was cast” is more important than speed, cost, and wider representation of the electorate.
And if there was a way to measure how many people typically change their minds between an election and a runoff I would certainly look into it, but I haven’t seen data on that. Anyway to me this is a nearly trivial difference. I get that for you it is very important, I just disagree. I think by election day people have a pretty good idea who their favorites are, who they like but not so much, who they could tolerate, and who they can’t.
And a top two runoff does throw away a lot of useful information and it is one way I think RCV is better: the top two out of a large field might represent the options acceptable to only a small minority of voters. If it is boiled down by rounds of elimination by RCV a lot more voter preference information is preserved.
If your preference is for the largest plurality to dominate, even if it a small minority, and to ignore the opinions of everyone else, I can see why you would not like RCV.
“And if there was a way to measure how many people typically change their minds between an election and a runoff I would certainly look into it, but I haven’t seen data on that. Anyway to me this is a nearly trivial difference.”
.
Just because you think it is trivial does not justify RCV. Seriously, regardless of whether a lot of people change minds, or no one does, RCV takes away the possibility. And that is the problem. I, and many voters like me, have lost the chance to change minds, or have a smaller field to compare.
.
I cannot speak for anyone else, but in the Anchorage elections, more than once, my preferred candidate did not make it to the run off. I NEEDED the chance to re-evaluate a smaller field of candidates.
.
“the top two out of a large field might represent the options acceptable to only a small minority of voters.”
First of all, four candidates and a write in is not a large field.
Second of all, under the open primary (a concept I abhor worse than RCV by the way. I also notice you ignore that in its entirety) you can end up with exactly the same situation. In fact, it is the EXACT situation you seem to think is a problem with a two person field in a conventional run off. Start off with a large field, and a small minority of the voters could select the final four on the ballot. Why is it OK from the primary, but not for a run-off?
.
So far, you have not convinced anyone (with the exception of yourself) that RCV is superior.
.
And, let me make this clear as well. The real problem I have with the current election system is not RCV. It is the jungle primary. Get rid of that, and I could live with RCV. I would not like it, but I could live with it.
Oh… one more point.
A small number of people actually select the person elected. With voter turn out below 30% a lot of the time, in a lot of places, the average person is just plain not interested.
.
So, your claim that a small minority of people might select the two in the run off is actually true, but not for the reason I assume you meant.
“Seriously, regardless of whether a lot of people change minds, or no one does, RCV takes away the possibility. And that is the problem.”
I agree that is a difference and agree it would be a nice-to-have, but in the balance against the other benefits I have already mentioned, I don’t think it tips the balance. I actually respect your position on this, I just come down in a different place.
“First of all, four candidates and a write in is not a large field. Second of all, under the open primary (a concept I abhor worse than RCV by the way. I also notice you ignore that in its entirety) you can end up with exactly the same situation.”
I ignore that because I don’t think the way Alaska set up the primary is really related to RCV at all, or that it is necessarily the best way to do it. My preference would be to have NO primary but only an RCV general election with no limit on number of preferences expressed, but possibly more stringent requirement on eligibility for the ballot. Vote merging during elimination rounds would consolidate party preference to the most popular candidate from each party.
“So far, you have not convinced anyone (with the exception of yourself) that RCV is superior.”
I know I have not convinced YOU, but I doubt you can speak for everyone who reads this. The remote possibility is why I am going through the exercise.
“And, let me make this clear as well. The real problem I have with the current election system is not RCV. It is the jungle primary. Get rid of that, and I could live with RCV. I would not like it, but I could live with it.”
AHA!
“So, your claim that a small minority of people might select the two in the run off is actually true, but not for the reason I assume you meant.”
Well…I think it is true for the reason I meant, but your point about low voter turnout is also valid. One reason for that is that people are not enthusiastic about having to vote against the greater evil instead of for who they like best, and RCV does address that by providing a mechanism to reduce vote splitting.
One more thing.
“The real problem I have with the current election system is not RCV. It is the jungle primary.”
It could be worse! CA and WA (and maybe others?) have TOP TWO jungle primaries. If you thing top four distorts the outcome be thankful it isn’t that.
And you know this how?
The vast majority of us don’t want it, regardless of outcome.
Hans, you really need to learn to have a cogent point.
The vast majority of people on Must Read Alaska you mean. Not exactly indicative of Alaska as a whole.
I wrote the bill because my grandfather didn’t understand the ballot. You obviously don’t know much about Rank Choice Voting.
#RankedChoiceVoting Washington, D.C. (May 31, 2023) – The DC Democratic Party has concluded that Ranked Choice Voting (RCV) is not in the best interest of voters and candidates in the District of Columbia. After an extensive eight-month discussion and careful deliberation, the party reached this decision, taking into account the unique characteristics of the District and the potential impact of RCV on the electoral system.
“We have identified significant concerns that prevent us from endorsing this approach,” stated the party. One of the fundamental issues highlighted is the unequal voter turnout across District wards, which RCV would not adequately address and could potentially undermine democratic principles.
Undervoting, a significant challenge faced by the District, would also be worsened by the adoption of ranked choice voting. The party’s priority is to ensure that every vote is counted accurately and that the voice of each voter is properly represented, without introducing complexities that hinder voter engagement and participation.
The DC Democratic Party expressed wariness about the broader agenda associated with RCV, stating, “It was clear to us then that RCV is part of a broader agenda to erode the influence of the strong Democratic base in the District.” They highlighted concerns about potential consequences such as open primaries that could undermine the rights of registered Democrats to choose their nominee for public office.
The party firmly believes in ensuring that every voter, regardless of party affiliation or independent status, has the right to freely choose their preferred candidate. They emphasize that the current electoral system in the District provides ample choices for voters to engage with the political process and participate in the general election, without disenfranchising anyone.
Through this comprehensive process, the DC Democratic Party has determined that RCV is not suitable for the District of Columbia, taking into consideration its unique circumstances and the potential consequences it may bring.
The message seems to be that institutionalized election fraud and disenfranchisement disguised as ranked choice voting are okay if the right folks are okay with the outcome.
.
Can’t wait to hear more.
You mean if I was a liberal democrat…
Dan, there is no such thing any longer as a “liberal Democrat”.
Democrats today are all, or virtually all, ILLIBERAL, radically leftist, and rabidly authoritarian. The word “liberal” no more defines a contemporary Democrat than the words “aware” and “alive” define the incontinent bag of bones currently usurping the office of the presidency.
OK, “Marxist,” then.
Liberal?
Try leftist. There is nothing liberal about the Democrats these days.
The existence of one failure that happened to elect a D, Peltola, when Begich was the most preferred candidate is no reason to believe RCV favors leftist or D candidates. Very many other elections were held under RCV, and Republicans were elected. In most every election, RCV indeed elects the one the population wants, or at least is more likely to do so than the primary/general election system with plurality voting.
Wrong.
So Wrong.
Ranked Choice Voting is mathematically flawed. I wrote a bill, a book, and a 30 part video series about the topic.
Book Title “Rank Choice Voting – Illusion of Choice”
Did you know that RCV is so complicated that the division of elections in multiple states messed up so bad it impacted who won in 2022?
Alaska Example:
Alaska Elections Issues in 2022: Do you think it would have made a difference if Al Gross’s name was on the ballot in the U.S. House Race? The race went from 2 Republicans vs 2 Democrats, to 2 Republicans vs 1 Democrat (allowing the possibility of splitting the Republican Vote)
“The Division (of Elections) Failed To Strictly Comply With Election Law Deadlines.” Alaska Supreme Court
“On June 21, 2022 — 56 days before the special general election and the regular primary election — Dr. Al Gross filed his withdrawal from both elections. At that time, preliminary special election results indicated that Dr. Gross had the third most votes in the special primary election, followed by Mary Peltola with the fourth most votes and Tara Sweeney with the fifth most votes.
Though the parties did not raise the issue of Dr. Gross’s name being removed from the special general election ballot, we are troubled by the Division’s apparent failure to abide by the statute and its own regulations in this regard. Under our interpretation of AS 15.25.100, unless a candidate withdraws “after the primary election and 64 or more days before the general election,” the Division “shall place on the general election ballot only the names of the four candidates receiving the greatest number of votes for an office.” This language makes clear that, had the Division strictly followed the law, Dr. Gross’s name should have remained on the special general election ballot. Similarly, under 6 AAC 25.210(b), the 64-day replacement deadline applies to removing a withdrawn candidate’s name from the general election ballot. Abiding by this regulation would have required the Division to leave Dr. Gross’s name on the ballot” – Alaska Supreme Court April 28th, 2023
Oakland Example:
Issues in Oakland, CA with Rank Choice Voting, this happened in the 2022 election.
“Following revelations that the Alameda County Registrar of Voters miscounted ballots for several ranked-choice races in the November election, the Board of Supervisors voted in January to have the registrar conduct recounts of four races—including the narrowly decided Oakland mayor’s race. …But over two months later, the recounts haven’t been conducted, and the registrar of voters told the supervisors Tuesday that it’s almost assured they never will. In December, the registrar of voters issued a press release admitting his team used the wrong settings on elections software to tabulate ranked-choice votes”
“Still, the registrar’s mistake fueled distrust in the results and boosted calls by some groups including the NAACP for a recount in the mayor’s race.”
This same year Alaska used RCV for the first time and it was the last State in the Country for regular election results and had the lowest voter turnout in the history of the State.
If you are very knowledgable about RCV, you obviously know that even though it is very flawed, it’s still better than simple plurality. You should also know that the top 4/RCV system is more likely to elect the most preferred candidate than the plurality primary/general election system. You should also know that it shows no favorability toward any particular party or political ideology.
Does not matter. It is an awful election system and it gives one voter multiple votes when another one only gets a single vote.
And, open primaries are the absolute worst part o fit. Tell me why a card carrying registered Republican should have a say in who the Democrats want in the general election?
No not really. This whole thing was det up to keep Princess Lisa in and plant Mary whatever last name she’s using in Don Youngs seat
Great Job Alaskans for Honest Elections, Thank you, Thank you, Thank you
I not sure the legislators in Juneau will cooperate. Half the “Republicans” work for the democrats.
I imagine the Division of Elections will be working overtime to find every jot and tittle that will enable them to reject signatures and the petition. RCV is in their best interest. Even if it is not in the best interest of Alaskans. Let’s hope we can get this on the ballot. Even more: let’s help Alaskans for Honest Elections fund a media blitz that will inform voters and help overturn this mess we’ve found ourselves in. And remove ourselves from being the laughingstock that we’ve become.
I saw them, signed the petition and got a button saying NO RCV!
I’m proud of these people for standing up for what is right. RCV was a bad idea from the word go.
Bravo…
A big shout out to Mikaela Emswiler! She absolutely worked till all signatures were obtained! Many may have helped but without her there would have been tears at deadline! Just another Republican woman making things happen in the state of AK! If you didn’t sign it the problem was you cause it was everywhere! Way to go, Mikaela. You made us proud!!
Agreed, from the beginning she was a rockstar and we couldn’t have done it without her.
Anchorage needs to get local elections held back in November. The lie that they save money and that voters are to stupid to beable to comprehend multiple issues is a farce.
It would be a whole lot easier also if we didn’t have 18 bond issues designed to skirt around the tax cap
If you have cats, dogs, or children, you already know how easy it is to say “NO!” 18 times.
What a boneheaded, sore loser response.
Conservatives in this red state could use RCV to trump (pun intended) any election. The key is to stack the deck with smart, clear-thinking, articulate, candidates. Then we “vote the red” and can’t lose.
The issue here is that the woke crowd got ahead of us and whupped us at what should have been a hometown, clear-winner game. The sore-butt solution of these petitioners is to go back to an archaic system that gives voters binary choices that we have a record of losing (e. g. ANC Assembly).
Wise up, old farts, or you’ll continue to wither.
I don’t think you know very much about Rank Choice Voting. The only Republican who has ever won using RCV is Lisa Murkowski. Let’s find out how below.
An Analysis of Alaska’s Shift from Traditional Plurality Election to Ranked Choice Voting: Unveiling Potential Gaming of the Election System
This research paper examines the significant shift in voter behavior in Alaska’s US Senate elections between 2020 and 2022, where the state transitioned from a traditional closed primary and plurality election to a Jungle Primary with Top 4 Ranked Choice Voting method. The focus is on understanding the substantial swing in voter support for Democrat candidates, which experienced a dramatic decrease from 41.2% in 2020 to a mere 10.7% in 2022. The results indicate a clear example of potential gaming of the election system aimed at hindering other candidates from securing victory.
Introduction:
Alaska introduced a significant electoral reform in 2022, implementing Ranked Choice Voting (RCV) for the first time. This new system aimed to provide voters with more choices, mitigate the “spoiler effect,” and promote candidates with broader appeal. However, the 2022 US Senate election revealed a notable shift in voter preferences, particularly among Democrat supporters. This paper delves into the factors behind this shift, exploring whether the introduction of RCV had unintended consequences.
Methodology:
The research analyzes voter data from the 2020 and 2022 US Senate elections in Alaska. The 2020 election utilized a traditional closed primary and plurality voting system, while the 2022 election employed a Jungle Primary with Top 4 Ranked Choice Voting method.
The primary focus is on the performance of the Democratic candidates in both elections and the percentage shift in their voter support. The Democrat in the US Senate Election in 2022, received the lowest percentage of the vote in a US Senate Election in Alaska’s History.
Results:
In the 2020 US Senate election, the Republican candidate Dan Sullivan secured victory with 53.9% of the vote (191,112 votes). The Democratic candidate, Al Gross, received 41.2% of the vote (146,068 votes).
However, the 2022 election under RCV witnessed a notable change in voter behavior. Two Republicans collectively obtained 86% of the total votes cast, with 226,219 votes. The Democratic candidate, which had received significant support in 2020, experienced a dramatic decrease in voter backing, obtaining only 10.7% of the vote (28,233 votes), the lowest for a Democrat in Alaska’s History.
Discussion:
The striking drop of 30.5 percentage points in voter support for the Democratic candidate from 2020 to 2022 indicates a noteworthy shift in preferences. This change can be attributed to the introduction of the RCV system, which might have influenced voters’ strategic behavior.
The Jungle Primary with Top 4 Ranked Choice Voting method allowed voters to rank candidates in order of preference. To block other candidates from winning, some voters may have strategically ranked only Republican candidates while leaving the Democratic candidate unranked. This approach could potentially lead to the elimination of the Democratic candidate in the early rounds, ultimately favoring the Republican contenders in the final round. This type of strategic voting behavior by Democrats can only be explained by Gaming. Voters knew the Democrat could not beat @KellyForAlaska they voted for @lisamurkowski so they could make sure Kelly did not win.
Conclusion:
The implementation of Ranked Choice Voting in Alaska’s 2022 US Senate election resulted in an unexpected and substantial shift in voter support for Democratic candidates. The decline of 30.5% from 2020 to 2022 suggests a potential gaming of the election system by voters to prevent other candidates from winning.
There is a glaring flaw in this study. Lisa Murkowski is a Republican in name only. She is a de facto democrat. So there wad no dramatic decrease in support for democrat candidates. They voted for democrat Lisa Murkowski, even though she is not registered as such. But the conclusion is right about RCV being gamed. But it wasn’t the voters who gamed it. It was Lisa Murkowski who gamed it to prevent Kelly Tshibaka from winning.
Abolishing party primaries and implementing RCV are two different things. Lisa and her supporters didn’t game RCV. All they did was ensure that a flawed primary system didn’t knock her off of the general election ballot, thus allowing a less-preferred candidate to win.
Lisa may not be a Republican in the opinion of many, but she is not a Democrat either. She fits better under the category of unaffiliated or independent.
The Democrats across Alaska wanted Lisa Murkowski to get re-elected. Open primaries allowed that.
How can I tell? Look at how many votes any of the Democrats got in the primary. Almost none compared to Lisa and Kelly. Weird that so many people who voted for Al Gross and Begich before him suddenly decided a “Republican” was their best choice.
What happened is the system was gamed, with the purpose of keeping deep staters like Murkowski in office.
Clear-winner game? Voting shouldn’t be a gamble. (Gambling is illegal in Alaska.)
If you want honest elections, then you make the election process as simple as possible. This reduces errors. It also reduces resources needed. It also ensures voters aren’t disenfranchised.
It’s okay that machine-counting accuracy is “verified” by comparing only 5% of machine-counted RCV votes to hand-counted votes?
.
It’s okay that, after the second round of RCV vote shuffling, there is –no– ballot audit trail, which means no one, including the writer, knows whether RCV actually worked as advertised?
.
It’s okay that unelected government officials essentially —re-cast peoples’ ballots—, randomly discard ballots, rely on machines using proprietary software to tabulate votes, use ERIC-manipulated voter registration files, allow ballot-box stuffing, allow ballot harvesting?
.
At least 42,000 voters said it’s not okay
.
…which sends a clear message, even to the staunchest advocates of institutionalized election fraud and disenfranchisement.
Not sure what you mean by “second round of RCV vote shuffling” and “-no_ ballot audit trail…” All original ballot data was made available to the public as a JSON file, which citizens parsed and analyzed. They got the same numbers as the state vote counters. In one race, RCV did NOT work as advertised (US House special election), but appears to have done so in all others.
Round Two (and beyond):
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.
.
At that point, according to Division of Election employees, the audit trail stops.
.
What’s an audit trail? It’s a system of secure records cataloging events and procedures to provide support documentation. It’s used to authenticate security and operational actions, mitigate challenges, or provide proof of compliance and operational integrity. (www.smartsheet.com/audit-trails-and-logs)
.
No audit trail means no proof of process compliance and operational integrity.
.
Ballots which don’t include the two ultimate finalists are discarded in order to manufacture a contrived majority for the winner.
.
So, to your point, Brian, it seems reasonable to ask what openly observed and verified process assures voters that:
.
(a) all original ballot data was in fact made available to the public and
.
(b) numbers which state vote counters made public are accurate and are the same numbers generated by vote-tabulation machines?
.
If RCV reportedly did not work in one election, why was the election not invalidated; what convinces voters beyond doubt that RCV “appears” to have worked in other elections?
.
Put another way, RCV advocates believe they know how RCV is supposed to work, but who, outside the election system, can say with absolute certainty how RCV actually did work?
.
Recalling the oft-affirmed GIGO principle, what exactly do citizens expect to derive from “parsing and analyzing” numbers generated from inaccurate voter rolls, computerized vote-tabulation gear running in a proprietary ecosystem, ballot-box stuffing, ballot-harvesting, and a mail-in ballot chain of custody compromised from the beginning?
.
Bottom line is the old-school process may not have been perfect, but it was reasonably quick, observable, and verifiable by people who didn’t have to be forensic digital data experts.
Inaccurate voter rolls, ballot stuffing and ballot harvesting abuses are just as likely and just as detectable under RCV as simple plurality elections. Beyond that, I don’t see why any audit is needed in the further rounds considering that all ballot data is made available to the public and the public does the auditing. They got the same numbers the state got. That part of the process is perfectly transparent.
That’s a different issue than determining if numbers which state vote counters make public are accurate and the same as those generated by vote-tabulation machines. Also, I’m not so sure RCV is a whole lot worse than that of plurality in regard to to verifying these numbers. Lots of reasons to dislike RCV and use something else, so I don’t see that it is helpful to make up unfounded ones.
What are some of the issues that would cause them to reject a signature? This should have been mentioned before having someone sign their name on the petition
Not a registered voter.
Duplicate signature.
Refusing to provide identifying information. (voter ID#, last four of your SSN, or driver license number for example).
.
And, all of those issues are generally discussed before you sign.
That does not stop people from doing it wrong.
Hello, this is Phil Izon leader of the signature drive.
List of ways a signature or petition book can be rejected
If you don’t fill out the personal identification part (ID #, voter ID number, DOB)
Missing notary section, even missing writing down the city will disqualify a book. Happened yesterday when we submitted, had 10 books rejected.
If the voter is not a registered voter is another way for them to discredit a signature.
Otherwise that’s about it.
As long as the petition book is notarized correctly, all the boxes are filled and there is a signature, name, address, ID info, and date then it is considered valid.
The State did an initial count and accepted 41,895 out of nearly 43,000, now we need to get 30/40 House Districts with 7% from the most recent election which is quite difficult.
We believe we have 35-36/40 House Districts with the minimum and we have 41,895 that were accepted and we only needed 26,000.
We feel very confident in our chances,
It will take 30-60 days to find out.
Stay in touch
Thank you so much to the Alaskans who followed thru on this! I wasn’t contacted but would have signed if I was approached
They will stop at nothing to prevent its repeal. Left wing democrats and moderates are elected under RCV. Right wing republicans are not. It’s that simple and how the liberal white elites designed it to function.
Repeal repeal!
Just say no to rank💩choice voting.
This is AFBE’s (Alaskans For Better Elections) description on X (Twitter):
‘More than 173k Alaskans voted to end dark money, create open primaries, and implement ranked-choice voting to make our election system work for ALL voters!’
What a crock. They used 7mill in outside dark $ to ram this through in Alaska. And not by Alaskans. And what is “for ALL voters” mean? It was for ALL voters before. But now it’s actually not for ALL voters. We had the lowest turnout for voting ever. And 15k ballots were exhausted. So NOT for ALL voters.
What grifters.
But, ballot measures are exempt from the dark money restrictions of BM 2. Whoopsie! (on purpose.)
The previous system was NOT for all voters because a very small number, say perhaps 8 to 10% of them, dictate the final outcome in a closed party primary. The most preferred candidate may not be elected.
Re: ballot exhaustion – The voter may voluntarily exhaust his or her own ballot by not ranking all candidates. That’s his or her choice and not the fault of the voting system. There are many disadvantages for RCV, but ballot exhaustion is not one of them, unless voters are prevented from ranking as many as they want (e.g., voters can only rank three candidates in Minneapolis mayoral elections with about 35 candidates).
Ballot exhaustion when you relate it to ballot complexity are really major concerns that people like you over look.
I have data from Oakland that proves ballot error rates can be as high as 20% in poor minority communities. This impacts the total ballots exhausted and kills rank choice voting.
You may want to read my book “rank choice voting – illusion of choice” it is the most comprehensive manual on the topic that exists.
I also wrote the repeal, was the leading signature gatherer, and I have done presentations in 12 statuses about the topic, I have a 30 part video series, and I have personally worked on band of RCV in multiple states.
It’s unlikely you know more about RCV than I do.but happy to have a dialogue. Easier if you just read my book.
For about 16 years, I have been a part of a group of many people around the country who advocate use of voting methods better than Hare RCV (IRV) and who criticize many of the false claims made by FairVote. This collection of advocates has been active for more than two decades, and they are VERY knowledgable about RCV.
To be honest, I’ve never heard of you. How long have you been advocating for abolishment of RCV? Have you been collaborating with or getting advice from anyone at the Center for Election Science, the Equal Vote Coalition or others? Are you familiar with or working with any people from these organizations such as Aaron Hamlin, Chris Raleigh, Clay Shentrup, Warren D. Smith, Mark Frohnmayer, Sara Wolk, Annie Kallen, etc?
Ballot exhaustion when you relate it to ballot complexity are really major concerns that people like you over look.
I have data from Oakland that proves ballot error rates can be as high as 20% in poor minority communities. This impacts the total ballots exhausted and kills rank choice voting.
You may want to read my book “rank choice voting – illusion of choice” it is the most comprehensive manual on the topic that exists.
I also wrote the repeal, was the leading signature gatherer, and I have done presentations in 12 states about the topic in front of 5 Secretaries of State, multiple Congressmen and Congresswomen, multiple State Legislators, I have a 30 part video series, and I have personally worked on bans of RCV in multiple states.
It’s unlikely you know more about RCV than I do, but happy to have a dialogue. Easier if you just read my book.
Can you explain to me why primaries should not be closed?
If you are not a registered member of the party, why should you have any say in who the party puts on the general election ballot?
Want to be non-declared, you have voluntarily chosen to give up your right to tell Republicans, Democrats, Greens, or any other party who represents them on the ballot in November.
.
Oh… a small number of people choose the candidate? Sign up. If you prefer the Democrat platform, register as one. Same with any other party. Want to pretend you are actually independent (almost no one is, they just like to say it) cede your right to say who represents your preferred party in the general election.
.
Perhaps if that actually happened, overall voter turn out would increase. People would actually show up for the primary elections.
Then again… humans being what they are, I doubt closed primaries will change anything at all.
Primaries absolutely should be closed, and parties need to strictly vet their members. Please don’t ask just anyone to join. Your suggestion that any voter should join a party based on preference for its party platform ignores the problem that the present primary/general election system discourages such sensible associations. Unfortunately, the smart strategy for voters is to join whichever party determines the outcome of elections. In Idaho, the R Party holds closed primaries which dictates most all election outcomes, so Satanic Temple members are joining in order to have an impact. This is not good for the R Party.
Definitely close the primaries, but on the other hand, revoke the special treatment government gives parties to block their nomination losers from the general election. Sore loser laws, which include prohibitive ballot access hurdles for third party and independent candidates, must be repealed. All candidates regardless of party affiliation will face the same hoops and hurdles to acquire ballot access. Let’s have nominations be only nominations, parties be parties which are well-defined, and elections actually be elections that matter.
In an old school plurality-wins election, the ballots that did not name the winner are also “exhausted.” What did you expect?
Regardless of the outcome, what rationale could be applied to the strong efforts to block a vote after actually using the new system. Suppression of a fair voice of the voting public is not a partisan issue. Accepting of the checks and balances ensure all of our freedoms.
Need more signatures come to the railbelt .
Oh, this bad news. Very bad news.
I sure hope so Frankie. I hope that your daughter is kicked out of the game and sent back to her mommy and daddy with her tail between her legs crying like a little loser.
You shouldn’t need a computer to calculate who wins an election.
A computer isn’t really needed. Australia has been using RCV for a century, long before computers existed.
I have spoke to people who did the Virginia Rank Choice Voting in the primary during COVID, counting by hand. Sure it can be done, one one would agree to RCV if you did though. It was a nightmare.
You sir need to learn more about RCV
A Decade of Stories about #RankedChoiceVoting
San Francisco, 2011: A study on the 2011 San Francisco Municipal Election found that precincts with higher proportions of Asian and Pacific Islander, Latino, and older voters, as well as more progressive precincts, were more likely to have ballots containing overvotes. Precincts with higher concentrations of older, moderate, Latino, and Asian and Pacific Islander voters tended to vote for only one candidate instead of ranking multiple preferences.
Maine, 2018: A study in Maine analyzed the impact of RCV on campaigns and civility. It found that negative spending on campaigns increased significantly after implementing RCV, suggesting that RCV does not make campaigns more civil. The study also noted that Facebook advertisements mentioning congressional candidates in Maine during the first year of RCV implementation were more negative compared to similar districts in other states.
New York City, 2021: The first ranked-choice primary in New York City experienced a high rate of “exhausted” primary ballots, where nearly 15% of certified ballots did not select the top two candidates, Eric Adams or Kathryn Garcia, rendering them inactive. This higher rate of exhausted ballots raised questions about the system’s effectiveness.
2022 Oakland, CA Mayoral election, incorrect instructions on RCV ballots caused confusion. The discrepancy between the instructions for a “5-star” rating survey and RCV ballots led to added challenges in the election process. Furthermore, a significant number of ballots (3.5%) were overvoted, with varying rates across different precincts. The division in overvote rates aligns closely with the demographic division of Oakland, between higher-income areas and lower-income areas.
Implementation Challenges:
The implementation of RCV in precincts is closely correlated with demographic factors. Low-income and predominantly non-white precincts face
challenges with RCV, resulting in higher rates of disenfranchisement compared to high-income, predominantly white precincts. Overvoting, along with other error types such as duplicate candidates and skipped ranks, poses significant issues when using RCV ballots. Some precincts experience error rates as high as
23%, affecting one in four voters.
The Alameda County Registrar of Voters in California miscounted ballots for several
ranked-choice races in the November election, including the Oakland mayor’s
race. Despite calls for a recount by groups like the NAACP, they were never conducted.
Overall, these instances highlight various challenges and discrepancies associated with ranked-choice voting, including overvoting, ballot errors, confusion, and concerns about fairness and accuracy.
Re: “You sir need to learn more about RCV”
You need to stop directing this very ignorant assertion to people in these discussion forums. None of the general concepts you are explaining in your above comment are new to me; I am very knowledgable about the problems and disadvantages of using RCV. Your general point that RCV is worse than the simple plurality method, particularly if coupled with primaries, defies conclusions of every political scientist who studies voting systems. Perhaps you are the one who needs to learn more about RCV!
Florida just purged 1 million voters from the voting Rolls how are we sure people in grave yards are not voting in Alaska?
We have upwards of 30% errors on our voter rolls. This and electronic voting are both areas of concern.
After reading a few of these comments, it sounds like some people wanted a petition book brought to them on a silver platter so that they could sign it. I heard about the effort to remove rank choice voting and I sent an email to Alaskans for Honest Elections. I did not get an answer at first, but I kept badgering them until I did get a response. Maybe their office was a little slow at responding at first, but they picked up speed and came through with flying colors on this endeavor. Point is that if you believe in something and want it to happen, YOU have to go make it happen – don’t wait for others to come to you or do it for you.
I hope that ALL Alaskans get out and vote on election day 2024 – we need to flood the polling places with conservative votes and get rid of the demons, their bad practices.and their cheating ways.
“Ranked Choice Voting” and “Eliminating Party Primaries” are two totally separate issues. The latter was used to “sneak in” the former here in Alaska. I am surprised that no state or other organization has challenged RCV on U.S. Constitutional grounds based on the “one man (person, for you so inclined!), one vote rule” on the basis that, as some have posted here, it is so statistically complex you can end up with so many run-offs and/or counting schemes that a citizen’s vote gets in effect, “negated”. At the very least a much smaller number of people out of all voters can elect a candidate compared to a non-RCV election as happened here in Alaska for Don Young’s replacement.
Why not eliminate both RCV and party primaries? Why do people (especially Scott Kendall) assume that RCV is a necessary part of any system that eliminates party primaries?
Thank you, Mr. Izon! I called our local Legislative Information Office to find out where to sign a petition book. It was easy and satisfying to sign it. Alaskans, let’s sink ranked-choice voting to the bottom of the Aleutian Trench where it will be subducted under the North American Plate never to be seen again. 🇺🇸
Comments are closed.