4 ms·
How can we say "if Palin hadn't run" when Republicans preferred her over Begich? Why didn't they pick him over the other two if he's the favorite? Begich only
by Bilal_io 4y ago
How can we say "if Palin hadn't run" when Republicans preferred her over Begich? Why didn't they pick him over the other two if he's the favorite?
Begich only got more second choice votes because after picking your first, it comes down to "the least evil", on one hand some people preferred Palin because they'd hate Peltola to win, and on the other hand people picked Peltola because they'd hate for Palin to win.
If there were Republican primaries, Palin would have won over Begich, because in that instance you cannot count the votes that went second after Peltola as they're like Democrats. And then in a general election, we'd have the same scenario play as it did with RCV.
- gamegoblin 4y agoI completely agree with you that the result under the traditional primary system and FPTP election would have been the same. Palin would have won the primary, and then lost the general. The ultimate question is which candidate is socially optimal. Don't think about specific methods like FPTP, RCV, etc. Just think about specific heuristics. If you somehow had an algorithm for summing up societal satisfaction, which candidate would maximize it? Given that 52.5% of people prefer Begich over Peltola, do you agree that more Alaskans would be satisfied if Begich was the winner (again, without thinking about the details of the algorithm that selected him)? Given the result, it is clear that Alaskans are more satisfied with Peltola than Palin, but it's also clear that Alaskans would be even more satisfied with Begich over Peltola. But due to the particular algorithm used, that better outcome was precluded. There are different tabulation algorithms that result in higher expected satisfaction.