Joe Biden's Sham Victory or Why Ranked Choice Voting Sucks

Joe Biden's Sham Victory or Why Ranked Choice Voting SucksShow more

Let us compare the % of all EV (Electoral Votes) that were captured by the winner of the Electoral College in states where the winner did not get more than 50% of the vote in that particular state. I will also calculate the % of EV in states won by <50% for the individual getting 2nd place in the Electoral College.

For this exercise, I will ignore any faithless electors, folks who decided to throw their EV away by voting for an individual that did not win their state. https://uselectionatlas.org/RESULTS/ I will start w/ all post-WWII POTUS elections.

Harry Truman 1948 received 84 EV in states where he did NOT hit >50% of the vote. Those were 27.63% of his 304 EV. Without those EV, he does not have an Electoral College majority. Truman also failed to win a national popular vote majority.

Thomas Dewey 1948 received 91 EV in states where he did NOT hit >50% of the vote. Those were 48.14% of his 189 EV. Dewey also failed to win a popular vote majority.

In 1948, Strom Thurmond received 38 EVs & 10 of them (26.31%) were in states where he did not win a popular vote majority.

1948 POTUS election, 185 of 531 (34.83%) EVs in states where no candidate won a popular vote majority.

Ike 1952 received 11 EV in states where he did not win >50% of the vote, which was 2.48% of his 442 EV.

Adlai Stevenson 1952 received 10 EV in states where he failed to win a majority, which was 11.23% of his 89 EV. Stevenson did not have a national popular vote majority.

1952 POTUS election, 21 of the 531 EVs (3.95%) in states where no candidate won a popular vote majority.

Ike 1956 received 11 of his 457 EV (2.4%) from states where he did not win a majority of the popular vote.

Adlai Stevenson 1956 received 74 EV & 8 of those (10.81%) were in states where he did not have a popular vote majority. He also failed to gain a national popular vote majority.

1956 POTUS election, 19 of the 531 EVs (3.57%) were from states where the winner did not obtain a popular vote majority.

JFK 1960 received 43 of his 309 EV (13.91%) in states where he did not gain a popular vote majority. Sans those 43 EV, Kennedy would not have won an Electoral College Majority. He also failed to receive a national popular vote majority.

Nixon 1960 received 0 of his 220 EV in states where he did not gain a popular majority. He also failed to receive a national popular vote majority.

1960 POTUS election, 51 EVs (MS’ 8 EVs were “unpledged”) of the 537 (9.49%) were in states where the winner did not hit the >50% popular vote threshold.

LBJ 1964 received 0 of his 486 EV in states where he did not win a popular vote majority. LBJ won a national popular vote majority.

Barry Goldwater 1964 received 0 of his 52 EV from states where he failed to win a popular vote majority. He did not win a national popular vote majority.

1964 POTUS election, 0 of the 538 EV (0%) were in states where the popular vote winner failed to achieve a popular vote majority.

Nixon 1968 received 222 of his 302 EV (73.5%) in states where he failed to gain a popular vote majority. Without those EVs, he does not win an Electoral College Majority. Nixon also failed to receive a national popular vote majority.

Hubert Humphrey 1968 received 152 of his 191 EV (79.58%) from states where he failed to receive a popular vote majority. Hubert Humphrey also failed to secure a popular vote majority.

George Wallace 1968 obtained 45 EV & 28 of those (62.22%) were in states where he fell short of a popular vote majority.

In the 1968 POTUS election, 402 of the 538 EVs (74.72%) were allocated to candidates that did NOT obtain a popular vote majority in that jurisdiction.

Richard Nixon 1972 of his 521 EV, 0% (0) of them came from states where he failed to crest the 50% popular vote margin. Nixon won a national popular vote majority.

George McGovern 1972 received 0 EV of his 17 EV in states where he failed to get a popular vote majority. Obviously, McGovern did not achieve a national popular vote majority.

1972 POTUS election, 0% of the 538 EV were allocated to candidates that did NOT obtain a popular vote majority in that jurisdiction.

1976 Jimmy Carter received 43 of his 297 EV (14.47%) in states where he failed to achieve a popular vote majority. Without these EVs, he does not win an electoral college majority. Carter notched a national popular vote majority.

1976 Gerald Ford got 91 of his 240 EV (37.91%) from states where he did not get a popular vote majority. Ford did not have a national popular vote majority.

In the 1976 POTUS election, 134 of the 538 EVs (24.9%) were in states where nobody received a popular vote majority.

1980 Ronald Reagan captured 489 EVs, 235 of them (48.05%) came from states where he did not win a majority of the popular vote. Sans those EVs, Reagan does not win a majority of the Electoral College. Reagan won the national popular vote by a large margin.

This particular example may demonstrate how absolutely stupid Ranked Choice Voting is, which we will get to momentarily.

1980 Jimmy Carter captured 49 EVs & 34 of those (69.38%) came from states where he did not win a popular vote majority. Carter did not win a national popular vote majority.

In the 1980 POTUS election, 269 of the 538 EVs (50%) were in states where no candidate received a popular vote majority.

1984 Ronald Reagan won 525 EV & zero of those (0%) came from states where he failed to attain a popular vote majority. He won the national popular vote by a wide margin.

1984 Walter Mondull won 13 EVs & 10 (76.92%) of those came from jurisdictions where he failed to obtain a popular vote majority. Mondale did not have a national popular vote majority.

1984 POTUS election, of the 538 EV, (1.85%) 10 of those were in states where no candidate received a popular vote majority.

1988 George H.W. Bush won 426 EV & none (0%) of them were in states where he failed to attain a popular vote majority. He achieved a national popular vote majority.

1988 Michael “Beetle Bailey” Dukakis received 112 EVs, zero (0%) of them were in states where he failed to attain a popular vote majority.

1988 POTUS election of the 538 EV, (0%) none of them were in states where no candidate received a popular vote majority.

1992 “Slick Willie” Bill Clinton captured 370 EV & 361 (97.56%) of them were in jurisdictions where he did not have a popular vote majority. Obviously, without those EV he is not even close to an Electoral College Majority. Bill was far short of a national popular vote majority. Are Democrats going to argue Bill’s victory was tainted because of that?

1992 George H.W. Bush received 168 EV & 168 (100%) of them were in states where he did not get a popular vote majority. He also was well short of a national popular vote majority.

In the 1992 POTUS election of the 538 EV, (529) 98.32% of them were in jurisdictions where nobody received a popular vote majority.

1996 “Slick Willie” Bill Clinton got 379 EV, 149 (39.31%) of those were in jurisdictions where he did not get a popular vote majority. Without those, he does not win a majority in the electoral college. He also was short of a national popular vote majority.

1996 Bob Dole got 159 EVs & 127 (79.87%) of those were in states where he did not capture a popular vote majority. He was well short of a national popular vote majority.

In the 1996 POTUS election, 276 of the 538 EV (51.3%) were in areas where nobody captured a popular vote majority.

2000 George W. Bush won 271 EV & 54 EV (19.92%) were in states where he did not capture a popular vote majority. He was short of a national popular vote majority. Without those EV, he does not have an Electoral College majority.

2000 “Uncle” Albert Gore Jr. won 267 EV & 44 EV (16.47%) were in states where he did not capture a popular vote majority. He was short of a national popular vote majority.

2000 POTUS election, 98 of the 538 EV (18.21%) were in states where nobody achieved a popular vote majority.

2004 George W. Bush received 286 EV, 12 (4.19%) of those were in states where he did not capture a popular vote majority. He received a national popular vote majority.

2004 The French-Looking Candidate John F. Kerry captured 252 EV & 10 (3.96%) of those were in states where he did not capture a popular vote majority.

2004 POTUS election, of the 538 EV, (4.08%) 22 of them were in states where nobody achieved a popular vote majority.

2008 Barry Hussein Obongo received 365 EV & 26 (7.12%) of those were in states where he did not capture a popular vote majority. He did capture the national popular vote majority. I am NOT adding an additional EV to his total (that is, total of EVs won in states where nobody hit the 50% threshold), due to winning an EV in Nebraska, which doles out its EVs by Congressional District. Obongo did not win a popular vote majority in NE but did win a majority in one of its CDs.

2008 John McCain obtained 173 EV, 14 (8.09%) of those were in states where he did not capture a popular vote majority.

In the 2008 POTUS election, 40 of the 538 EV (7.43%) were in states where nobody achieved a popular vote majority.

2012 Barack Obozo obtained 332 EV & 29 EV (8.73%) were in states where he did not capture a popular vote majority. He won a national popular vote majority.

2012 Mitt Romney obtained 206 EV & 0 EV (0%) were in jurisdictions where he failed to capture a popular vote majority.

In the 2012 POTUS election, 29 of the 538 EV (5.39%) were in jurisdictions where nobody captured a popular vote majority.

2016 Donald J. Trump captured 306 EV & 107 of those (34.96%) were in jurisdictions where he did not capture a popular vote majority. Without those EVs, he does not win an Electoral College Majority. I am NOT adding an additional EV to his total (EVs in jurisdictions where nobody hit 50% of the vote plus one), due to winning an EV in Maine, which doles out its EVs by Congressional District. Trump did not win a popular vote majority in ME but did win a majority in one of its CDs. Trump & Clinton were both short of a national popular vote majority.

2016 Shillary Clintonoid captured 232 EV, 50 EVs (21.55%) were in jurisdictions where prune face did not capture a popular vote majority.

In the 2016 POTUS election, of the 538 EV (29.18%), 157 of them were in states where no candidate captured a popular vote majority.

The % of Electoral Votes in POTUS elections from 1948-2016 that were given to candidates that did NOT achieve a popular vote *majority* in that particular state was (2,242 of 9,662) 23.2%.

The % of Electoral Votes (from states where they did NOT achieve a popular vote majority) in POTUS elections (1948-2016) that went to the person who achieved a majority in the electoral college is (1,387 of 6,867) 20.19%.

Now, we shift it a bit. The % of Electoral Votes (from states where they did NOT achieve a popular vote majority) in POTUS elections (1948-2016) that went to the person who achieved a majority in the electoral college *AND* received a national popular vote majority was (367 of 4,105) 8.94%.

***
2020 “Kid Sniffer” Joe Biden “captured” 306 EV & (57) 18.62% were in jurisdictions where the dementia patient did not capture a popular vote majority. Biden won a national popular vote majority, but sans those 57 EVs he does not win an electoral college majority.

2020 Donald J. Trump captured 232 EVs & (6.46%) 15 of them were in states where he did not capture a popular vote majority.

In the 2020 POTUS election, of the 538 EV, 72 (13.38%) of them were allocated to candidates that did not achieve a popular vote majority in that state.

Joe Biden supposedly received >51% of the national popular vote, a substantial win. Yet, the % of his Electoral Votes that came from states where he failed to breach the 50% mark was substantial.

If I calculate a Population Standard Deviation pertaining to the % of EVs *from states where nobody received a popular vote majority* from 1948-2016 for those who won the electoral college & achieved a national popular vote majority that = 13.4147 (2.48,2.4,0,0,14.47,48.05,0,0,4.19,7.12,8.73)

Joe Biden is on the upper end of that, but within 1SD (8.94+13.4147). The reason Ronald Reagan (in 1980) had such a high % of EVs in states where he failed to obtain a popular vote majority is because a disgruntled Republican named John Anderson was siphoning off some votes, enough to diminish Reagan’s support enough that in many of the states he won, he could not crest 50% there, despite doing so easily on a national level.

Joe Biden had no “major” opponent aside from Donald J. Trump. The % of EVs he received w/ not popular vote majority in the states (and thus, giving him the election) is alarming. And that’s about all I have to say about that.

***
Now to the stench known as Ranked Choice Voting, or a way to allow Lisa Murkowski to piggyback off of Democrat support to win a general election when she likely would’ve been dispatched in the GOP Primary. https://elections.alaska.gov/results/22GENR/US%20SEN.pdf https://www.elections.alaska.gov/election-results/e/?id=22genr https://www.elections.alaska.gov/results/22PRIM/ElectionSummaryReportRPT.pdf

One of the reasons Alaska & other states have either implemented Ranked Choice Voting (RCV) or are thinking about it is because many times the winner of the election fails to get a popular vote majority. That just means the Dems & GOP are not doing a good enough job & folks are looking elsewhere.

I told that to my father & he replied, “So what?!” I concur, so what? Look at all the POTUS elections where the person who took the oath of office got a slew of EVs from states where he was <50% & became POTUS because of that.

Look at all the POTUS elections where nobody received a popular vote majority. So what?

Bill Clinton never sniffed a popular vote majority, should we have had RCV & essentially make Perot voters determine the election by choosing between George H.W. Bush & Bill Clinton? Or does it only matter if it’s a statewide Senate seat?

What if Perot voters “teamed-up” to dispatch Bill Clinton? Were people “holding their nose voting for Perot” as well or were they the really smart voters who were proving how intelligent they are by refusing to vote for the “two-party duopoly”?

That’s the beauty of this system & I “threw away” my vote many times on the Libertarian. I knew Gary Johnson (I am still a Libertarian, but registered Republican once again) was not going to win in 2016 & I never answered the question, “If you had to choose between Hillary & Trump, who do you pick?” I never answered that because unlike the RCV clowns who supposedly know better, I did not vote strategically.

I was hoping Gary’s performance in 2016 was a springboard & then an idiot who pandered to #blacklivesmatter named Jo Jorgensen came along & I decided I was w/ Orange Man Bad.

The RCV clowns assume that because I voted Libertarian I was “throwing my vote away.” I never threw my vote away, period.

If you believe in your heart (or are so disenfranchised at the Republicans & Democrats that anyone else is better) that the Libertarians can fix this mess we are in, then work to convince others to join you.

People vote one way or another for many different reasons. When I caucused for Ron Paul in 2012 & Rand Paul in 2016, I was voting *FOR* both of them, not against anyone else.

When I decided to cast my lot w/ Orange Man Bad in 2020, it was because Biden & the child predators who want men in your daughter’s fitness center locker room or school bathroom must be stopped.

Who cares why people vote the way they vote; whether it’s because they despise one candidate more than another or because they love a candidate.

Joe Biden could’ve been replaced on the ballot by Pol Pot & Pol Pot would’ve gotten the same number of fake & real votes as Joe Biden, period.

Some people might vote for Candidate A because “while he is not perfect, he has a good chance to win the general election.”

Someone might vote for Candidate C “because he is not perfect and really who is perfect? Do you think that if we had 3 major parties & the Libertarians had a majority in Congress, we would be better off suddenly? Then the Greens or other indy candidates would be screeching about ‘Washington’s broken triopoly’ good old boys club. So, to argue that people are always holding their nose & want another alternative is a façade much of the time.” How do you like them apples?

Nobody w/ a pulse is going to argue that Ronald Reagan’s win in 1980 was not a tsunami but look at all the states where he failed to gain a popular vote majority. The only reason was because there was another Republican siphoning off votes from him.

The same goes for a lot of other races, the Libertarians steal some Republican-leaning support & perhaps the Green Party siphons off some disgruntled Communists who don’t believe that groomers like Joe Biden are redistributing enough $ for their liking.

Many proponents of RCV assume much of the above, that their *REAL* preferences are someone else & thus we need RCV. Uh, ok. If those were their preferences, how come the failure to attain 50.1% of the vote? [X NOTE]

It just means the election is contentious, there are a lot of viewpoints, presumably a lot of candidates & We The People are having a difficult time picking a winner. Just because nobody hits 50.1% doesn’t mean voters are holding their nose & choosing the lesser-of-two-evils?

Richard Nixon won >60% of the popular vote in 1972 & LBJ won 61% of it in 1964, people could have just as easily been “holding their nose” voting for those clowns as when George W. Bush won in 2000 w/ 47.87% of the popular vote. The only difference is in the former two elections, there were a much higher proportion of the electorate “holding their nose” whilst voting for Tricky Dick & “Landslide” Ballot Stuffer Johnson.

See what I did there?

***

https://www.theepochtimes.com/south-dakota-bans-left-favoring-ranked-choice-voting_5148317.html

[X NOTE] https://web.archive.org/web/20181205041531/https://ivn.us/2018/12/04/ranked-choice-voting-survives-one-person-one-vote-challenge/

Here’s a debunking of some of the common talking points for RCV:

“One of the most prominent arguments against ranked choice voting, outside its complexity, is that voters end up getting multiple votes, so it must violate the constitutional precedent of “one person, one vote.”

“The problem with this argument is a fundamental misunderstanding of ranked choice voting and how it works. Voters don’t get multiple votes. They only get a single vote that counts toward the results… The technical term is single transferable vote. The idea is to show how these voters would ultimately vote should runoff elections be needed to produce a winner with majority support without using additional taxpayer dollars and resources for new elections.”

Rebuttal: Calling it a “single, transferable vote” is semantics, or better yet moving goalposts. If you are going to “throw your vote away” on a “third party” candidate then do so, but as I mentioned above, maybe they’re not “throwing it away,” maybe they are all-in for the Green Party or Libertarian Party. I was all-in for the Libertarians for about a decade & then I realized my best chance is to try to get the best Republican nominated in the primary. The open-borders zealots in the Libertarian Party were also quite annoying (some Libertarians, such as Larry Sharpe are NOT open borders zealots).

It's not a single vote if you are ranking all the candidates, you should just admit that. Another common rejoinder https://ballotpedia.org/Ranked-choice_voting_(RCV) is: “In a ranked-choice election, the only way to waste your vote is to actually vote against a candidate. As long as the candidate you like least doesn’t reach the 50 percent threshold, they won’t win. So only positive votes matter. ... Ranked-choice voting effectively allows voters to vote their actual preferences instead of having to vote strategically. This would have a meaningful impact on elections and governing. It would empower independent and third party candidates by eliminating the “wasted vote” argument.”

That bile courtesy of Greg Orman, who ran a sham Senate campaign (backed by the Democrat Party) in Kansas back in 2014. The Dems did not run a candidate & instead backed a stealth Democrat masquerading as an Independent. The voters did not buy it.

I am amazed at Orman’s ability to read the minds of millions of people. I am shocked that w/ this ability, the moron was not able to win a Senate seat. Who does Orman “like least”? Adolph Hitler, Joseph Stalin, Pol Pot or Vladimir Lenin?

Orman’s tacit admission is that RCV is not for preferences, but is strategic, despite what he says above. If Libertarians were the actual preference of We The People, if third-party candidates were the actual preference, then they would have won more than just four https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_third_party_and_independent_performances_in_United_States_elections Senate elections (Angus King & “Parkay Teeth” Bernie Sanders, both in 2012 & 2018. The latter never ran against a Democrat and a Republican in the same election, King did, so his case is an actual win by an Independent, not one where the Democrats realized they had a dyed-in-the-wool Communist, so they did not nominate a candidate. King also won the gubernatorial sweepstakes twice as an Indy, defeating a Republican & a Democrat each time) since 1990 & more than 6 Gubernatorial elections in the same time frame.

Independent candidates do much better in Gubernatorial races than in the Senate. In the Senate, they don’t even get 5% of the vote about 91% of the time. Yeah, voters are really gravitating towards those folks & Orman (as well as his RCV enablers) want to pretend that those are the real smart voters who are pissed-off about that dang duopoly in Washington & we must give them a voice.

They’re an outlier, period & the data shows that. So, either join the Republicans or the Democrats & get involved in primaries (so we can get more Rand Paul & Thomas Massie, less Mitch McConnell & Susan Collins) or keep voting for candidates that get 2% of the vote.

They’re trying to get third-party voters involved, as if they’re not already involved. It’s not empowering those third-party voters as Orman stated, it’s allowing them to choose between the Republican & Democrat when their candidate does not win.

But, but, the Republicans & Democrats suck, so RCV is allowing the lesser-of-two-evils to breach the 50% threshold in an election where they otherwise would not.

Choose the Republican or the Democrat then or keep trying to grow your third-party base. I tried it for about a decade, it was frustrating. I digress.

Now back to the IVN Network bile: “In a system that at every institutional level tells voters there are only two viable options — Republican or Democrat — this causes many voters to cast their ballots strategically, leading to “lesser-of-two-evils” voting (i.e. voting against the least preferred candidate rather than the preferred candidate) and vote splitting.”

More mind reading. These are the same folks who think America is a democracy. https://ivn.us/posts/forward-podcast-do-voters-really-care-about-democracy This system also tells folks that Social Security is not a Ponzi Scheme, the federal government has an obligation to “educate” our children & how many of these folks have ever read or comprehend Article I Section I or Article I Section VII of our Constitution? I digress.

[NOTE: This is a kook group that is pushing back against closed primaries. https://ivn.us/posts/opinion-if-we-want-young-people-vote-ny-open-primaries https://ivn.us/posts/video-who-will-give-1-million-independent-penn-voters-equal-vote https://ivn.us/posts/new-mexico-ready-end-closed-primaries Closed primaries are not voter suppression. https://ballotpedia.org/Closed_primary Because the GOP or the Dummycrats require you to actually be a member (a golf course banning non-members from their venue is not suppression either) of their clique to vote in their primary is not suppression, it’s common sense. I would require all voter registration to end 60 days before an election & if you are registered & want to vote in the GOP primary, you must also register w/ them 60 days prior or you don’t vote. You could also get involved w/ the Libertarian Party or Green Party, two lesser political parties that usually have a candidate on the ballot in most states, especially the former. I don’t want independent voters or registered Democrats voting in my GOP primary. Remember the angst towards Rush Limbaugh’s “Operation Chaos” in the 2008 Democrat primary? Closed primaries would stop that, so quit whining or get involved w/ a specific political party. I should also point out that trying to get Independent voters involved in primaries is a bit odd because the vast majority of Republicans & Democrats don’t bother to get involved in primaries. Maybe urge more of them to turnout? It’s also a fact that during midterm elections, turnout is much, much lower than POTUS election years. Maybe urge more registered Republicans & Dums to get to their own primary?]

[NOTE: It is true (I remember Gary Johnson mentioning this in 2016; more Americans are NOT registered w/ the GOP or Democrats alone) that indy voters make up the biggest voting bloc in America. So, if it’s true that in general elections people are holding their nose, voting for the lesser-of-two-evils Democrat or Republican, why do those indy voters keep voting for them? If all those indy voters got together & were as organized as the Demoncrat kiddie groomers or the Republicans, they could elect the President. They could all vote for the Libertarian candidate & guess what? We would have a third-party President. So, perhaps people are more likely to “hold their nose” for the Republican or Democrat than the Libertarian or Green Party whack job. Needless to say, I don’t really buy the “holding your nose” argument. Maybe all the candidates are so bad, you have to hold your nose for someone & to date, anyone not a Republican or Democrat is not even worth holding one’s nose for. So yes, in most states there are more people not affiliated w/ the Democrats & Republicans, but by golly they still vote for them 95+% of the time. Odd? https://independentvoterproject.org/petition/end-rigged-elections https://elections.cdn.sos.ca.gov/ror/123day-gen-2020/historical-reg-stats.pdf https://www.cnn.com/election/2022/results/california/primaries/governor If ALL of California’s indy voters got together behind a third-party candidate, they would be able to, by their sheer numbers get a candidate into the runoff. Yet, they continue to hold their nose for Fascists like Gavin Newsom. Go figure]

Wouldn’t the least-preferred candidate be the person who got the fewest votes? Or at the very least major parties that can get on most state ballots?

Speaking for Iowa, in all Gubernatorial elections since 2006, we have had a Republican, Democrat & Libertarian candidate. I guess the Greens are the least-preferred because after 2006 they were not able to even make the ballot & have never received more than 1.43% of the vote.

In Senate elections, the Greens rarely even get on the ballot. Most of the time the Libertarians do, but they get a skosh over 2%, if they are lucky. Why is that? They cannot raise the money (and ending campaign finance laws that limit $ donated directly to candidates would help 3rd party candidates more than anything else) & they cannot get the signatures to get on the ballot.

What does that mean? They are the least-preferred candidates you morons!

Sounds like the Greens & Libertarians are the ones the voters are scared of, but for some reason these nutcases think the voters are scared of the folks who get 95-100% of the vote in virtually every election. And yes, you should be scared of the Democrats because they want to allow male pedophiles in your daughter’s locker room.

Maybe the voters are idiots? Congress routinely has approval ratings right up there w/ STDs & cockroaches, no matter who controls Congress. The national debt continues to skyrocket & the economy has been tepid since the Tech Bubble popped. The economy has been in the crapper for the better part of 3 years.

Congress has approval ratings in the toilet, voters throw the bums out. The debt continues to skyrocket, Congress has approval ratings in the toilet, the voters throw the bums out, Congress has low approval ratings, the debt continues to skyrocket, the voters throw the bums out, Congress has approval ratings in the toilet.

Maybe the voters should fire themselves? Maybe if the shelves are empty for 3 or 4 months that will be the wake-up call we need. I hope it happens, the pain will be immense, but what doesn’t kill me (and empty shelves for 4 months will not kill me) will quite possibly wake America up & make it stronger in the long run. I digress.

More from the IVN article: “Instant runoff voting (the most popular form of ranked choice voting among US reformers) is an alternative voting method that is designed to remedy these problems that affect voter choice and empowerment.”

Rebuttal: Calling this an “instant” runoff is another use of semantics. For example, in Georgia https://ballotpedia.org/Runoff_election there is a runoff election the following month after the general election if no candidate hits 50% (plus one vote) of all votes cast. I understand the urge to avoid making voters go to the polls again, especially if they voted in the primary. I also understand the urge to include more than the top two as rarely there is a 3rd party or write-in candidate that gets a substantial % of the vote.

This would be three trips to the polls in about 5 months, depending on when you had your primary.

In Georgia & Louisiana (although the latter has a “jungle-primary”, Ballotpedia calls it https://ballotpedia.org/Jungle_primary the “Louisiana majority-vote system”) the top two advance to the runoff & the RCV in Alaska manipulated it so they could get marginal candidates & their voters involved. Instead of the top two advancing from a crowded primary, they made it four. How is someone supposed to get 50% (although Gavin Newsom did it in the 2022 primary) when you have 19 candidates on the ballot?

Even Chuck Grassley, as popular as he is in Iowa, would have a difficult time hitting the 50% threshold in a jungle primary, as there would likely be several Republicans challenging him. He may get 50%, but it would become much more difficult as more Republicans got in the race.

If I was to implement RCV in an electoral system, I would let the Libertarians, Greens, Republicans & Dumocrats have their primaries & then have that system in the general election – I would avoid a jungle primary where you can have numerous Republicans, numerous Democrats, a few Libertarians & a few other “independent candidates” on the ballot.

But I am not in favor of RCV, don’t allow marginal candidates to decide the election, if they were so popular, they would not be marginal.

You could also amend your State Constitution, in the event of the Governor’s race not having a candidate hit 50.001%, allow the legislature to vote in their preferred candidate among the top two (or perhaps all candidates that breach the 10% mark, I’m amenable). They are directly elected by We The People, they could decide.

[NOTE: Repealing the 17th Amendment & sending Senate elections back to the legislatures as it was intended would end a lot of this dark money spending in Senate races if that irritates you & it would keep people from making the Senate their career, I guarantee it]

If they fail to give a preference by the time the new Administration steps in, whomever is Speaker of the House take the reins until the Legislature makes a decision.

The top two vote-getters in Alaska’s crowded primary in the summer of 2022 received 83.6% (Lisa Murkowski & Kelly Tshibaka) of the vote, yet the top four advanced & the next two were marginal candidates (Patricia Chesbro got 6.82% & Buzz Kelley received 2.13%). This is definitive proof that there should be a GOP Primary prior to this & one of those heavyweights would be gone.

This was an open primary disaster that ensured nobody would get 50% or virtually ensured that. I will reiterate, I am for closed primaries. It keeps Republicans from meddling w/ the Democrat primary & vice-versa.

All “Democrat” candidates received a combined 8.86% of the vote in the 2022 primary. That is far less than what the Democrat nominee received in any Senate general election from 1998 (they received a paltry 10.51% in 2002 & 11.62% in 2016, probably due to Murkowski being opposed by the man who defeated her in the GOP primary back in 2010. Joe Miller ran as a Libertarian) to 2022 & is indicative of a lot of third-party votes probably for Murkowski.

Lisa Murkowski has been subjected to primary challenges every single time since her father appointed her in an act of nepotism. In 2004, she received over 50% of the vote in a tough GOP primary & did the same in 2016, although the former was much closer.

In 2010, she was defeated, her opponent even getting a popular vote majority & that’s when she mounted a write-in campaign & was obviously saved by non-Republican voters in the general. That is their right, if they want to do so but they had to choose – save Murkowski or “throw your vote away.”

If each party had its primary, Murkowski would’ve likely been toast & not even part of the equation unless she mounts a write-in campaign as she did in 2010. Then, let those who vote for marginal candidates save her again, if they want to.

https://www.theepochtimes.com/south-dakota-bans-left-favoring-ranked-choice-voting_5148317.html I would advise you to write your elected officials & do what South Dakota did, kibosh RCV.

[NOTE: Alaskan Democrat Mary Peltola won the state’s at-large congressional seat during the same mid-terms, even though “nearly 60 percent of voters cast their ballots for a Republican,” the Federalist reported. https://thefederalist.com/2023/01/11/ranked-choice-voting-keeps-rigging-elections/ ]

Lunatic Regressives are doing all they can to get marginal voters to the polls, everything but educating people on the Constitution. They want to mail out ballots to everyone, they want everyone registered automatically, they turned welfare offices into voter registration centers & now they want cluttered, convoluted RCV-style open primaries.

It’s not really that hard to vote & if you have to cajole people that much, they probably should not vote. I have changed my voter registration before, it’s not difficult.

If those independent voters want a voice, get behind the Libertarian or Green Party, they would probably love to have you. Most of these indy voters end up casting a ballot for a Republican or Democrat anyways (read: They hold their noses for the main parties & NOT the Libertarians, Green Teeth Party or any other “Independent” candidate), so they should hitch their wagon to one of them & get involved in primaries. I too, have voted in a lot of primary elections because that may be the difference between nominating a Rand Paul or a squish like Mitt Romney.

Make those “disaffected voters” who cast their ballots for marginal candidates (again, I have voted for a lot of folks over the years that got ~3-4% of the vote) either continue doing so or hitch their wagon to one of the big boys.

In an election where there are more “heavyweights” (like MN’s gubernatorial election that went to Jesse Ventura, the 1992 POTUS election & several gubernatorial sweepstakes in ME, just to name a few), it becomes less likely anyone will get a popular vote majority & a RCV-style open primary ensures that.

Why not have all party primaries (The Libertarians usually have a candidate, especially in AK) & then implement RCV? I presume then you’d have an amalgamation of Indy candidates (some of them outliers, some of them heavyweights) doing the flight-of-the-bumblebee to get on the ballot. You might have 5 or 6 in the general where RCV comes in, instead of 19.

Why the top four? Why not implement a threshold where only candidates that hit 25% (plus one vote, ensuring no more than three move on) move on & if there are no 25% vote getters (or only one) you take the top two (Yes, 25% is arbitrary, someone else might prefer 10% to get more clowns in). If there were only two, we’d essentially have a re-run of Murkowski getting dumped in the general election, although it is possible that indy voters may have saved her again.

25% plus one is a good threshold, it would keep marginal candidates out of the general & would probably be a better barometer. You would have a lot of “disaffected” third-party voters (who usually vote Libertarian or Alaskan Independence) forced to vote for Murkowski or Kelly Tshibaka or you can just sit on your duff at home & sit it out.

This system is not new, but it is certainly a diversion from the norm.

I don’t think they are trying to get more third-party candidates elected, because a monstrosity of a primary w/ 19 people on the ballot is certainly less-likely to see an “Independent” make it to the general, they just want the small % of voters (AK has elected two “Independent” Governors & several people to their legislature) who do not vote Republican or Democrat to “have a say.”

If you want to “have a say,” do what some voters have done in ME or AK over the past few decades. Get behind an Indy candidate & vote them into office; your numbers in most states are large enough, but they keep “holding their nose” (or that is what we are told) for the Democrat or Republican.

I don’t buy it that people are begging for another option when the Dums & Republicans continue to dominate elections. For the record, I do not favor public funding of elections, I don’t favor public funding in most things as it is either unconstitutional and/or ineffective.

I would avoid what Georgia or Louisiana does, where you could have the voters going to the polls on the same race 3 times. Murkowski & her Democrat allies did not want something like GA’s system where the top two move on because that would not allow Democrats to vote for Chesbro & then rank Lisa second.

The Dummycrat might respond, “If it was just Murkowski in the general against Kelly, we would do that.” Ok, then go do it!

Or we can just continue the same system that was in place for many decades & quit whining because you get 40% or less of the vote, but the person that defeated you only got ~48%. Get better at convincing people to vote your way.

Why are we so obsessed w/ increasing turnout & not educating voters? Regressive Democrats do not want voters educated. I can use Story County, Iowa Supervisor Latifah Faisal as an example. She never mentions the national debt when whining about this country & she never mentions the Constitution, because she has no working knowledge of this. She knows how to say, “The government (read: taxpayers) should pay for your internet, because freedom & stuff.” Not much else up in that tiny brainpan.

This goes for a LOT of elected Democrats & most of their voters. It’s not as if you’re going to have some nuanced conversation w/ these idiots over Article I Section I (who is THE lawmaker?) or Article I Section VII (All Bills raising revenues shall originate in the Peoples’ House), just get out & vote.

It reminds me of the Super Bowl, which I have not watched for eons. #superbowl #whocares There are a lot of people who know squat about football & most do not care, but when the Super Bowl comes around, they have 850 tons of food, a pony keg & a good time.

The same goes for voting, they don’t know much, they don’t pay attention (but by golly, they have a 3-sentence rejoinder on topics educated folks have written books about), but they’ll vote. As an aside, people who know jack squat about football also know what play should have been called w/ one minute left in the game.

I would rather increase turnout of educated voters, not zombies who just know how to recite the things they want other people to pay for.

I will reiterate again, https://ivn.us/2018/12/03/gop-asking-tennessees-lawmakers-close-states-open-primaries closed primaries are not voter suppression, this is a retarded argument. I was a registered Libertarian; you can get involved.

It’s not that hard to register as a Republican to vote in their primaries & it forces people to do so if they want to vote for the dumbest Republican, to make it easier for someone else to win. If you want to vote in the GOP or Democrat primary that bad, then register w/ that party, period.

Get campaign finance laws changed that allow massive donations directly to a candidate, that would allow some well-heeled, well-financed person to donate to an Independent candidate &get his message out on the airwaves. Keeping that system in place only helps the GOP & Democrats.

Or get that large number of independent voters together & get someone outside the box elected. It can be done!

The IVN article engages in more mind reading: “The idea behind ranked choice voting is that voters can show which candidate they prefer most without feeling like they are wasting their vote, while also showing their preference for the top vote getters should no one get a majority. In many ways, this upholds the precedent of “one person, one vote” better than the choose-one voting system, because it gives voters the confidence to express their true preference in an election while also ensuring they get an equal vote in the final results.”

And again, if the true preference of the voters was a lesser candidate, more would win or be competitive, but they are not. The idea of “wasting your vote” is contrived, just a way to allow people who do not vote for a Republican or Democrat to be swing voters.

[NOTE: I would argue Joe Biden’s voters are not holding their noses. The COVID-19 lockdowns gave them the option of being underemployed & poor or sitting at home on their fat duffs, getting paid to watch Netflix. They don’t have much to lose. In addition, they voted for Biden because the 6 years it took them to get a useless degree translates to a lot of possible retirement savings (maybe that is giving them too much credit) squandered dealing w/ that debt. They want me & my boss to pay for that, despite the fact that our families already footed the bill for that]

And AGAIN (!) most states have enough unaffiliated voters they could elect a Libertarian or some other “Independent” candidate, but they do not. They’re not involved enough to register w/ one of the two major parties, but they still vote for them. Sounds like they need to get more involved.

It’s one person, several votes when you can “throw your vote away” on Patricia Chesbro & then save Lisa Murkowski from defeat in the 2nd round. That’s two votes to me, calling it “a single, transferable vote” is semantics.

AK’s RCV allowed two marginal candidates into the general election, period.

In conclusion, make sure your elected representatives know (and in most cases, a candidate obtaining 50% is not a problem & if not, “so what” as my father would say) that you oppose this RCV garbage & ask them to close your primaries, we don’t need Republicans & Democrats crossing over to vote for candidates they prefer to face & if you are an unaffiliated voter, register w/ one of the two major parties, get more Rand Pauls elected or do your best to get Libertarians elected.

I am working to get more Libertarian-leaning (sans the open borders garbage) Republicans elected & defeat as many Democrats as possible, they are toxic to society & will be judged accordingly for their sins against children (I’m talking those borderline-pedophiles that have a penis, wanting to hang out in the same pool locker room as little girls). If voting Republican to stop male pedophiles from hanging out in the same fitness center locker room as my daughter is “holding my nose” then count me in as a nose-holder.

Mr. Chairman, I Yield Back!

***
Like Perry Mason “Just one more question” or Columbo “just one more thing” I am back. I was going to tally the margin of victories for Senate races & compare them w/ Alaska, but that would be a lot of work.

Sometimes (although not often) one party does not bother to field a candidate (that is more common in the House) & sometimes you have two folks from the same party running against each other in the general.

Therefore, tallying the margin of victory would be quite tedious & not give us a good evaluation of AK Senate races in relation to all Senate races en masse.

So, beginning in 2004, which was AK’s first Senate race where the winner failed to attain a popular vote majority – I will compare all those races w/ all Senate races where the winner failed to obtain a popular vote majority, using Dave Leip’s data. https://uselectionatlas.org/RESULTS/

Since 2004, there have been (and I am NOT counting 2022, as their jungle primary/RCV virtually ensured that nobody would get 50%) six AK Senate contests & 5 of them (83.33%) of them had a winner that did not capture a popular vote majority.

Prior to 2004, only one time did an AK Senate race feature a winner who did not capture a popular vote majority. In addition, there were only two candidates on the general election ballot much of the time, so it was guaranteed that someone gets 50% plus one.

Those dang third-party voters, siphoning off support (I am being facetious)! It was bound to happen.

Of those 5 AK Senate contests where no popular vote majority was obtained, the average margin of victory was 5.122% (3.03, 1.25, 4, 2.13, 15.2). It should be noted in one of those contests, the winner did not achieve 40% & that is uber-rare. That was the year Murkowski mounted a write-in campaign after the GOP ditched her in favor of Joe Miller.

There are a lot of AK voters who are disenfranchised w/ the two main parties & it is also obvious that a lot of AK unaffiliated voters like Lisa Murkowski. Registered Republicans? Not so much.

In 2020, 2016, 2014, 2010, 2008 & 2004 there were 203 Senate contests & 23 of them met my criteria, nobody captured a popular vote majority. That’s 11.33% of all Senate contests. Much lower than the % in AK since 2004, but more than one in ten. It’s uncommon, but not unheard of.

[NOTE: No special elections counted unless they were in the November election cycle. If there was a runoff, it counts as an election w/ no popular vote majority & that requires a runoff in some states. I am only counting LA Senate contests in 2008 & 2010, as their silly jungle primary system was NOT in place for those races. I am also not counting the GA 2020 runoff for Johnny Isakson’s empty seat as the general election was a “jungle primary”]

The average margin of victory in those 23 races was (1.11, 3.03, 0.01, 1.24, 2.92, 3.35, 1.6, 1.68, 4.01, 0.81, 1.56, 1.94, 2.13, 0.14, 1.43, 2.43, 2.79, 5.66, 15.2, 1.78, 1.69, 1.75, 5.24) 2.76%, much lower than the margins in those AK Senate races where nobody received a popular vote majority. Population Standard Deviation for the 23 data points above = 2.982%.

The average margin of victory in AK Senate races that did NOT have a popular vote majority winner was *almost* one standard deviation above the average for all 23 of those Senate races, so the victors in AK have margins much higher than the typical Senate race sans a popular vote majority winner.

If you separate AK’s 5 senate races sans a popular vote majority winner from those 23 (leaving us w/ 18 races), then you have an outlier. AK’s Senate races where nobody gets a popular vote majority have much higher margins than races in other states where nobody received 50% plus one. Get it?

Some clowns will say, “Derp, we need more RCV in every state, derp.” Would you rather win a race w/ 50.07% of the vote & the 2nd place finisher received 49.76% of the vote OR win w/ 49% of the vote & 2nd place was back at 40.2%?

You see, just because nobody gets 50% plus one does not mean some travesty has occurred, but it does mean you may be within striking distance if you can convince more new voters to be in your bloc & convince others to turn away from the dark side.

In the case of the Democrats, see how many people you can cajole into being paid to do basically nothing & more stimulus payments on top of “free” college & “free” electric cars.

I do commend AK for avoiding another election round, as runoffs in GA typically have much lower turnout than the general. I would not sit at home, but I would also avoid a 3rd election (primary, general, runoff) in one year for a specific office. That can create voting burnout.

To finally conclude this rambling spiel, I would write your State Senator, State Representative, Governor & anyone else who will listen (and feel free to use my info) & urge them to kibosh any push for RCV voting, especially in the manner Alaska conducts it.

I think I have made all my points several times, be vigilant my friends. Mr. Chairman, I Finally Yield Back!

PS In a way, third party voters already decide a lot of elections. Their decisions ensure the Democrat & Republican candidates get <50% of the vote.

Show less