AK-AL Special election: Peltola wins!

[Fmr. Gov. NickG]

https://twitter.com/ap/status/1562243361502687232?s=21&t=NhuFFdK8ImqfiEDHZIH...

If candidates are routinely doing this in AK (finishing Top 4 but dropping out before the general election), that seems like it could be a pretty big problem for the integrity of the Top 4 RCV vote reform.  

What would have happened if Al Gross hadn't dropped out of the special?  It might have resulted in Begich being elected; instead, he won't even make the top 2.  Lot of opportunities for strategic manipulation (e.g. a niche candidate could run just to keep a more moderate candidate out of the Top 4).

Why did Sweeney even run for the full term primary when she only got 5% in the special election primary?

[Fmr. Gov. NickG]

Why don't they release the data on the 2nd choice rankings among the votes that have already been tabulated?

[Fmr. Gov. NickG]

Why don't they release the data on the 2nd choice rankings among the votes that have already been tabulated?

That would be messy since no one has been eliminated yet.

Just release the 2nd choice matrix for each candidate.

[Fmr. Gov. NickG]

People who complain about tactical dropouts I think miss the point, while it's true that Alaska picked a pretty weird-ass system for ranked voting (I say either do the Twin Cities model of having no first round at all and just have all the candidates run against each other in one ranked contest or the NYC/Maine model of having a traditional primary and general election but use ranked voting for both), the main reason there was such a push is Alaska has a strong tradition of third parties, and while the Alaska Independence Party and Libertarians haven't done well this year, that doesn't mean they or any other third party never will ever again, this would allow a way around the spoiler effect. It also makes the elections involving Murkowski quite neater. Now if you get a system in place where every time there's more than one Democrat or Republican making the second round and then one drops out, is that any different from just having a normal primary? It might not be what's intended, but it's hardly something that nullifies the point of the ranked voting.

It’s a very different situation because two Republicans running against each other in a primary don’t deny a spot on the general election ballot to a candidate of another party.

[Fmr. Gov. NickG]

Why would either candidate drop out?  The whole RCV system is created to avoid situations where we should have to worry about spoilers and thus there should be no pressure to drop out. 

In fact, there should be a very strong expectations that anyone who advances in the primary should continue to campaign through the general election.  Candidates dropping out after they have finished Top 4 (and thus denying a ballot spot to someone else), seriously damages the integrity of the reform.

[Fmr. Gov. NickG]

Why would either candidate drop out?  The whole RCV system is created to avoid situations where we should have to worry about spoilers and thus there should be no pressure to drop out. 

In fact, there should be a very strong expectations that anyone who advances in the primary should continue to campaign through the general election.  Candidates dropping out after they have finished Top 4 (and thus denying a ballot spot to someone else), seriously damages the integrity of the reform.

Strategic voting is still a thing.

If the race is between Peltola and Palin, then Begich—>Peltola—>Palin voters might switch and rank Palin over Peltola. Since RCV with two candidates is effectively FPTP, they might find it harder to justify ranking a Dem 1st than 2nd.

I don't understand how this would be "strategic" voting.  You are saying people who rank Palin last would end up ranking Palin first if she were heads up against Peltola?  How is this strategic?

[Fmr. Gov. NickG]

Why would either candidate drop out?  The whole RCV system is created to avoid situations where we should have to worry about spoilers and thus there should be no pressure to drop out. 

Instant-runoff voting does not satisfy what Wikipedia (presumably following the academic literature) refers to as the independence of irrelevant alternatives criterion, and is thus still subject to spoiler candidates. It is important to recall here that Gross finished ahead of Peltola. Let's suppose that there are a significant number of Begich–Peltola–Palin–Gross voters. If Gross had stayed in the race and again outpolled Peltola, thereby eliminating her, then in a Palin–Gross final round those voters would have gone to Palin. In a Palin–Peltola final round, they instead go to Peltola.

Instant-runoff systems provide a strong incentive to vote strategically for more "electable" candidates. When candidates drop out in a system like this one, they ensure that voters will effectively have to vote strategically. If Gross viewed himself as less electable and prioritized electing a Democrat, then his choice to drop out has worked exactly as planned.

It's true that RCV doesn't satisfy IIA.  But almost all single-winner real-world voting systems fail to satisfy IIA, and RCV tends to do better on this than FPTP in the type of real-world situations we are likely to see.

I guess my sense is while Gross dropping out -might- be strategic for the Democratic party (although I'm skeptical there are a nontrivial number of people who rank Begich–Peltola–Palin–Gross), it seems antithetical to the intent of the reform, and contrary to the will of the voters. 

It's like if under the old system the Republican party held a primary where Palin beat Begich, and then the party just decided to cancel the result and make Begich their nominee because he was more "electable".  That might be strategic for the party, but it would be bad for democracy.

[Fmr. Gov. NickG]

Peltola won!

[Fmr. Gov. NickG]

Does anyone know if they had run the RCV on election night, who would have been ahead?