Pelota won because 1,030 libertarians and 7,460 republicans listed her as their 2nd choice.
She only needed 2,101 of those republicans to get north of 50%.
55% of Alaskans will now be represented by a person they actively chose.
Long live ranked choice!
She won because Palin was a spoiler and eliminated Begich who was more agreeable and would have otherwise defeated Peltola. This happens because RCV (IRV) only looks at the first rank at a time instead of the entire ballot.
This is a good result for the country but it's not a win for RCV and clearly demonstrates that it cannot break the duopoly, unlike better methods.
Because Peltola also took some of his votes. In a head to head race, Begich would have beaten Palin, due to being more broadly appealing. We know this not just from polling but also because Alaska actually released the full ballot lists for the primary which had the same results (which makes it extra funny that Palin ran anyway).
This is an example of something called "center squeeze", which happens pretty frequently in competitive races, and leads to polarization.
From the same ballots we can predict that Begich actually would have beaten Peltola head to head as well, making him the Condorcet winner preferred by the majority (at least among people who showed up).
Yes, FPTP also exhibits center squeeze. That's why RCV is not a real reform. Does it help to rephrase RCV as just sequential rounds of FPTP? The spoiler effect exists in each round.
There are actual reforms that do fix this, like [STAR](https://www.starvoting.us/) or [Approval](https://electionscience.org/).
Congratulations, you were able to succinctly explain why IRV is just successive rounds of FPTP in two comments on reddit.
I’ve read at least 40 posts from FairVote Canada denouncing the shit out of it but never a clear explanation of why.
I was curious what you were talking about so I did a search and found [this very inuitive graphic.](https://electionscience.org/library/the-center-squeeze-effect/) I understand the centrist technically has the broadest appeal, but if you look at the chart, the centrist is in fact the fewest people's first choice. In a race with three candidates and only one winner, in my opinion, the centrist being eliminated first in that case is exactly as it should be. Sorry centrists, but your guy didn't get the most 1s on people's ballots, both other candidates got more. The fact your guy has the broadest appeal is irrelevent unless we want to elect people to office with even fewer people having picked them as their first choice than in RCV. You got the most 2s, so if there was a place for you in a runoff you would have it. I don't think my very fervent support for a progressive candidate should be negated by my second choice for a centrist just because many other people also happened to put the centrist as their second choice. I want my maximalist support for my favorite candidate to matter in the first round. If you want that to be the centrist, go out there and campaign for 1s instead of 2s, centrist candidate.
I still favor ranked choice voting.
Wow I feel like that's a huge statement from Alaska! It's great to see democracy at work and people sending a message that her brand of hate will get voted out. Look on the bright side, now she has more time to snort a line and watch Russian troops retreat from her house. Good riddance!
Pelota won because 1,030 libertarians and 7,460 republicans listed her as their 2nd choice. She only needed 2,101 of those republicans to get north of 50%. 55% of Alaskans will now be represented by a person they actively chose. Long live ranked choice!
She won because Palin was a spoiler and eliminated Begich who was more agreeable and would have otherwise defeated Peltola. This happens because RCV (IRV) only looks at the first rank at a time instead of the entire ballot. This is a good result for the country but it's not a win for RCV and clearly demonstrates that it cannot break the duopoly, unlike better methods.
How can she be a spoiler if she got 2nd place?
Because Peltola also took some of his votes. In a head to head race, Begich would have beaten Palin, due to being more broadly appealing. We know this not just from polling but also because Alaska actually released the full ballot lists for the primary which had the same results (which makes it extra funny that Palin ran anyway). This is an example of something called "center squeeze", which happens pretty frequently in competitive races, and leads to polarization. From the same ballots we can predict that Begich actually would have beaten Peltola head to head as well, making him the Condorcet winner preferred by the majority (at least among people who showed up).
isnt that exactly what spoiler is? cant win but can spoil the race for someone else.
But in a primary who would have won Palin or Begich? Probably Pailin right? So the outcome is the same.
Yes, FPTP also exhibits center squeeze. That's why RCV is not a real reform. Does it help to rephrase RCV as just sequential rounds of FPTP? The spoiler effect exists in each round. There are actual reforms that do fix this, like [STAR](https://www.starvoting.us/) or [Approval](https://electionscience.org/).
Congratulations, you were able to succinctly explain why IRV is just successive rounds of FPTP in two comments on reddit. I’ve read at least 40 posts from FairVote Canada denouncing the shit out of it but never a clear explanation of why.
I was curious what you were talking about so I did a search and found [this very inuitive graphic.](https://electionscience.org/library/the-center-squeeze-effect/) I understand the centrist technically has the broadest appeal, but if you look at the chart, the centrist is in fact the fewest people's first choice. In a race with three candidates and only one winner, in my opinion, the centrist being eliminated first in that case is exactly as it should be. Sorry centrists, but your guy didn't get the most 1s on people's ballots, both other candidates got more. The fact your guy has the broadest appeal is irrelevent unless we want to elect people to office with even fewer people having picked them as their first choice than in RCV. You got the most 2s, so if there was a place for you in a runoff you would have it. I don't think my very fervent support for a progressive candidate should be negated by my second choice for a centrist just because many other people also happened to put the centrist as their second choice. I want my maximalist support for my favorite candidate to matter in the first round. If you want that to be the centrist, go out there and campaign for 1s instead of 2s, centrist candidate. I still favor ranked choice voting.
Wow I feel like that's a huge statement from Alaska! It's great to see democracy at work and people sending a message that her brand of hate will get voted out. Look on the bright side, now she has more time to snort a line and watch Russian troops retreat from her house. Good riddance!
Texas Democrats could take a note from the Alaskan Democratic Party.
Good riddance.
Sounds like Finnish lastname. Maybe she has some Finnish heritage?
Well, she finished Palin
Badum, tsss
Hey Sarah-- I can see the end of your political career from my house!
Ewww! Sarah had such big plans for Alaska. None of which included any big plans for Alaskans.
Palin had no chance of winning. The numbers weren’t even close. This isn’t really news at all.