As expected, Alaska Republicans are infuriated at their unexpected loss in the Alaska special election to replace the late Rep Don Young (R), and are blaming it on ranked choice voting (RCV):
One of the most vocal critics has been Palin. On Thursday, she issued a statement saying this week’s ranked-choice results were “not the will of the people” and calling on the other finalist in the recently completed special election, Republican Nick Begich III, to end his campaign ahead of November’s general election in which the candidates will square off again for a two-year term. Palin also called for the state to provide more information on rejected ballots.
Begich on Wednesday issued his own statement portraying Peltola as out-of-step with most Alaskans and Palin as unelectable under the new system. He said the ranked-choice results made clear that in November, a “vote for Sarah Palin is in reality a vote for Mary Peltola.” [WaPo]
Finger-pointing galore – but making sure the Democrat who won, Peltola, is portrayed as being “out of step” with the electorate. It’s an insult to the electorate, really.
See, these Republicans are terrified. The Alaskan electorate has, through the mechanism of RCV, shown itself to be more of a moderate group than an extremist group, even if that’s ignoring the realities of special election voting, which typically feature lower turnout than normal elections[1]. And that isn’t going to suit the extremists currently controlling the GOP; in a showdown between a politician wielding the magical phrase You are a RINO![2] and an RCV-implemented election, the magical phrase wielder will lose, as many have predicted.
The second prong of the trident attack of the Republicans on the electorate has been single-issue voting, and RCV will also have an effect on those voters. See, single-issue voters are apocalyptic voters, voters who believe that if enough of the wrong people are elected, their critical issue, be it abortion, or gun-rights absolutism, or what have you, will go the wrong way and the country will implode.
I’m not kidding.
So if such wrong folks are elected, promulgate policies, and the country doesn’t implode … some of those single issue voters will decide they were wrong. There is no smoking crater. That’s bending the prong of the trident, blunting the Republican appeal for votes.
And the extremists lose their appeal.
The above WaPo article told me something new: Nevada has a proposed constitutional amendment on tbe ballot this November to make RCV the law of the desert the election system for congressional, gubernatorial, state executive official, and state legislative elections. I see this as a looming disaster for Nevada Republicans, and possibly certain Democrats and other parties farther to the left.
The extremists recognize the threat, and they’ve chosen fear as their weapon of choice:
Despite advocates’ claims that ranked-choice voting is better for democracy because it would give voters “more options” on Election Day, such arguments ignore the extremely confusing nature of the process. While speaking with The Federalist, Zack Smith, a Heritage Foundation legal fellow and manager of the Supreme Court and Appellate Advocacy Program in Heritage’s Meese Center, explained the intricacies of ranked-choice voting and how the process oftentimes “obfuscates the candidates and their position” from voters.
Ranked-choice voting can potentially lead to “someone getting elected to office that only has a minuscule amount of support from the electorate,” he said. “If [candidates] have problematic positions, it can make it very easy to hide those [from voters].” [The Federalist]
First, yes, The Federalist Society did supply lists of judges to former President Trump for nomination to the Federal Judiciary, including SCOTUS Associate Justices Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, and Barrett. Second, yes, the Heritage Foundation is a conservative think-tank. So, third, yes, this is conservatives talking to conservatives, not to neutral third party observers and analysts. Epistemic bubble time. They’re running around, hair on fire, flapping their arms in terror, and engaging in desperate mendacity – or just faulty analysis.
Or, in other words, No, RCV is not that complex. Ya got a favorite? Write them down here. Second favorite? Write them down here. Third? Put them there. Put the ballot in the machine. Done.
And, most importantly,
YOU DO NOT LEARN THE POSITIONS OF THE CANDIDATES WHEN YOU’RE MARKING THE BALLOT!
That comes earlier, from candidate materials, debates, gaffes, media reporting, and what have you – that does not change with RCV. Repeat after me, That does not change with RCV.
And it doesn’t hurt to tell the electorate they need to step up their game. In this case, it’s just not much of a step.
Why haven’t Democrats been pushing RCV harder? Well, for one thing, they inevitably have a salting of extremists who don’t like the idea that moderates may have more appeal. RCV does encourage cross-over voting in the secondary positions, doesn’t it? Better a conservative Democrat than an extremist Republican to the moderate Republican voter, for example.
It also gets rid of partisan primaries and caucus systems, both more susceptible to the party zealots; the open primary employed in most RCV electoral systems means anyone who can gather enough signatures gets to join the game. That favors people who’ve gained some fame or notoriety.
But I think the Democrats should push RCV harder. So far, no fundamental defects have emerged. Implementation can be a problem if computers are not available, resulting in several days delay for counting, otherwise it’s no big deal.
And for those of us who value moderates, who value humility, RCV is more likely to deliver the electorate’s honest choice.
1 For example, in the late Rep Don Young’s (R) last election to this seat, a total of 353,165 votes were cast. In the recent special election to replace Young, which is the first of Alaska RCV voting and thus makes this comparison reminiscent of apples and oranges, 188,582 are listed as having been cast. Does this mean 188,582 voters participated? This should be clarified by Ballotpedia, my source for this information. But, as an afterthought, I would expect moderates to be less likely to show up for a special election than extremists, who, by definition, have more interest in politics.
2 RINO is an acronym for Republican In Name Only, an epithet applied by right-wing power-seekers to those power-holders who get in their way. As I’ve said many times over the years, this is the mechanism, beginning probably with former Speaker Newt Gingrich (R-GA), and in combination with team politics, aka voting straight ticket no matter what, and single issue voting, that has driven the GOP from a right-centrist party very capable of governance into a far-right collection of power-grasping fourth-raters, such as half-term Governor, for no particular reason, Sarah Palin (R-AK). In other words, yesterday’s wielder of this magical phrase can easily be today’s victim of same, with one of the most famous victims being former Speaker Paul Ryan (R-WI). For some in the Republican Party, extremism is the primary measure of virtue these days, a fatal flaw in those voters.
