Who thought this was a good idea?
“Chaos isn’t a pit. Chaos is a ladder.”
— Petyr Baelish
Being complex, hard to tally is a feature. It makes cheating much more difficult to unravel. They are always changing rules to get Murkowski elected. Hopefully every Republican voter has had this explained to them and will not under any circumstances rank Murkowski. Trump should have endorsed multiple people I suppose.
It’s meant to select milk toast “moderates”.
Lots of out of state money pushed it. A number of Murkowski staffers pushed it.
It won with about a half a percent margin.
Just for reference, Minneapolis adopted ranked choice cheating, for city elections, a while back. It seems to be working wonderfully for them (leftists).
>> It might take weeks to tabulate
A runoff election would take longer—and cost more.
Either party can put fake candidates of the other party on the ballot to try and get their folks elected.
It's my opinion that more leftists run for office than those of us with jobs and families. So that pool will be dominated by those seeking public sector power: liberals. And while you may find your one conservative, the "well, he's good enough" candidate will get more votes because he's everyone's second or third choice.
Bizarre that a state built on rugged individualism came up with this way of voting.
I bet you can’t rank the same person for all the slots can you.
The Dims and RINOs are counting on “ranked choice” to save Murkowski. True one-man one-vote voting and she’d lose.
Two points
If one candidate gets over 50%, then no ranking is done.
I understood that there were no be write in options in the second round (which makes sense as the first round’s purpose is to whittle the field to 4). The election info in Alaska is now advising that write ins are an option.
Maine has RCV.
NYC now has RCV for mayoral elections.
Those RCV provisions were in HR1 for a reason.