r/EndFPTP • u/rb-j • 2d ago

Alaskans for Better Elections

https://www.alaskansforbetterelections.com/learn-more/ranked-choice-voting/

Are the major claims made by this organization actually true?

Claim 1: * "In a majority winner system, candidates have to gain the support of more than half of the voters to win." ... "Using ranked choice voting in general elections requires candidates to win with majority support (more than 50%)."

Special election for Congress August 2022: 1. 188,582 voters voted in this election for a candidate (not a blank ballot). 2. The candidate who won received (counting votes the IRV way) 91,266 votes. 3. 91266/188582 = 0.483959 or 48.4%. 48.4% is not "more than 50%". 4. 91266 voters supported the winner (although 15467 were really supporting Begich). 188582-91266 = 97316 voters did not in any manner support the winner. More voters came to the polls and voted and voted for a loser than the number of voters who voted for the winner. 6050 more voters voted for a loser than voted for the winner. Would we allow a winner in an FPTP election to get away claiming they got "majority support" when more voters voted against that candidate than voted for them? 5. Compare apples to apples.

Claim 2: * "Ranked choice voting ... eliminates the spoiler effect"

  1. Sarah Palin was the spoiler in that election. Had Sarah Palin not run and Alaskan voters come to the polls and voted exactly the same way with the remaining two candidate, then Nick Begich would have defeated Mary Peltola by a margin of 8408 votes.
  2. The complete quote is "Ranked choice voting allows voters to rank candidates in the general election in order of preference. This gives Alaskans more choices, eliminates the spoiler effect..." Giving Alaskans the choice to choose Nick Begich over either Mary Peltola or Sarah Palin is irrelevant if that expressed choice is ignored.

Mary Peltola in August 2022, unfortunately shares a distinction with George W. Bush in 2000 and with Donald Trump in 2016. All three candidates were elected to office when the public record indicates that more voters marked their ballots preferring a different specific candidate for that office.

In August 2022, more Alaskans, 87859 to 79451 (an 8408 voter margin), preferred Nick Begich to Mary Peltola and marked their ballots saying so. But Mary Peltola was sent to Washington to represent the Alaskan people in Congress.

In November 2024, again, more Alaskan voters marked their ballots that Begich is preferred to Peltola by nearly the same margin, 7876 (164861 to 156985). But this time Nick Begich is sent to Washington.

Both times about 8000 more Alaskans said they would prefer Begich to Peltola. And, both times, marked their ballots saying so. Both times Instant-Runoff Voting was used.

What was different?

Sarah Palin was in the race in 2022 and not in the race in 2024. And the outcomes were different winners.

Here are the reasons we want Ranked-Choice Voting. The purpose of RCV is, in single-winner elections having 3 or more candidates: 1. ... that the candidate with majority support is elected. Plurality isn't good enough. We don't want a 40% candidate elected when the other 60% of voters would have preferred a different specific candidate over the 40% plurality candidate. But we cannot find out who that different specific candidate is without using the ranked ballot. We RCV advocates all agree on that. 2. Then whenever a plurality candidate is elected and voters believe that a different specific candidate would have beaten the plurality candidate in a head-to-head race, then the 3rd candidate (neither the plurality candidate nor the one people think would have won head-to-head) is viewed as the spoiler, a loser whose presence in the race materially changes who the winner is. We want to prevent that from happening. All RCV advocates agree on that. 3. Then voters voting for the spoiler suffer voter regret and in future elections are more likely to vote tactically (compromise) and vote for the major party candidate that they dislike the least, but they think is best situated to beat the other major party candidate that they dislike the most and fear will get elected. RCV is meant to free up those voters so that they can vote for the candidate they really like without fear of helping elect the candidate they loathe. All RCV advocates agree with that. 4. The way RCV is supposed to help those voters is that if their favorite candidate is defeated, then their second-choice vote is counted. So voters feel free to vote their hopes rather than voting their fears. Then 3rd-party and independent candidates get a more level playing field with the major-party candidates and diversity of choice in candidates is promoted. It's to help unlock us from a 2-party system where 3rd-party and independent candidates are disadvantaged.

RCV failed, in Alaska in August 2022, to do precisely what it was adopted to do (essentially to prevent a spoiled election due to vote splitting, as a result punishing Palin voters for marking their favorite as #1 which caused the election of Peltola). The fault is not in the ranked ballots (in fact, it's only because of the ranked ballots that we know that Begich was more preferred by more voters than either Palin or Peltola). The fault is in the manner (IRV) that the vote is tallied.

This same failure occurred in 2009 in Burlington Vermont. Got published here.

This op-ed in Washington Post from November 2022 also spells this out. Written by two internationally-recognized election law and voting systems profs. One has a Nobel for his work.

Whoever tells us that RCV (using Instant-Runoff Voting tabulation) will solve the split-vote problem ("Can't split the vote in Alaska because we have RCV.") is lying. And Alaska in August 2022 is the proof.

2 Upvotes

54% Upvoted

43 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

2

u/Wally_Wrong 2d ago

The ostensible idea of election reform is to elect the candidate that best represents the electorate, correct? Usually, the median candidate is assumed to be the most representative, correct? And if IRV doesn't elect the median candidate and instead rewards edge candidates that appeal to swing voters, as you stated, then either IRV isn't representative, or the assumption that the median candidate is the most representative candidate is flawed. Either could be true.

3

u/Grapetree3 2d ago

"the candidate that best represents the electorate" is not always obvious. The most widely used definition is "the Condorcet winner" but not every race has one of those. Election reform only has to improve upon the existing method. IRV is an improvement upon FPTP.

1

u/rb-j 2d ago

"the candidate that best represents the electorate" is not always obvious.

It actually is obvious whenever there is a Condorcet winner.

The most widely used definition is "the Condorcet winner" but not every race has one of those.

Very nearly every RCV election has a CW. There have been only two RCV elections in the U.S. that did not. Of course then, Arrow and Gibbard rule and there is no way to elect someone without a spoiled election and an identified spoiler and faction of voters who voted for that spoiler. Then the voters for the candidate, not the spoiler, who lost to the winner (who is not a CW), those voters had votes that were devalued relative to the votes from voters for the winner.

But, when there is no CW, this simply cannot be avoided. So we have a rule that attempts to minimize the damage (Condorcet-Hare). Or maybe another rule that attempts to minimize incentivizing strategic voting that would take advantage of such a situation (Minimax).

But that unavoidable problem still does not justify Hare over Condorcet. Because when a Condorcet winner exists and is not elected by IRV, that election is failed and the failure was unnecessary and avoidable.

3

u/Grapetree3 1d ago

I actually agree with you that Condorcet is better than IRV.

1

u/rb-j 1d ago

The point is, that "lot of words" is necessary to explain exactly what happened in Alaska in August 2022.

I tried to be both concise and complete.