3 ms·

IIUC how it would've worked in Australia is: First round: Begic and Peltola garner the most first-place votes, Palin is eliminated. Voters who ranked Palin f

IIUC how it would've worked in Australia is: First round: Begic and Peltola garner the most first-place votes, Palin is eliminated. Voters who ranked Palin first get their second choice promoted to first. Presumably that would be Begic for most voters. Second round: Begic first choice votes + Palin > Begic votes vs. Peltola votes Looking at the data in the reddit vote breakdown thread it looks like Begic would've won with this method.

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
wnoise 4y ago
I don't know if they're exactly following the Australian STV rules, but it is quite similar. Begich had the fewest amount of _first_ place votes, so was eliminated first. However, Begich was ranked ahead of Palin (and Pelota for that matter) on more ballots than vice-versa.
- jpmoral 4y ago
  > Begich had the fewest amount of _first_ place votes, so was eliminated first. Ah, I misunderstood that part. Under Australian rules voters who ranked Begich first would have had their second choices promoted to first and added to the respective candidates. In this case ~27k for Palin and ~15.5k for Peltola. Then the totals are compared. Looking at it that way it's not so clear cut that it was unfair that Peltola was declared the winner. I think reasonable arguments can be made either way. One thing though is that on Australian ballots all candidates must be ranked.
  - wnoise 4y ago
    > Under Australian rules voters who ranked Begich first would have had their second choices promoted to first and added to the respective candidates. In this case ~27k for Palin and ~15.5k for Peltola. Then the totals are compared. Exactly what happened. Palin was a spoiler -- had she not run, Begich would ha e won instead. > One thing though is that on Australian ballots all candidates must be ranked. That's kind of ridiculous. It's quite unwieldy and leads to many spoiled ballots. And I don't think forcing ordering past the point of caring really changes anything.

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

wnoise 4y ago

I don't know if they're exactly following the Australian STV rules, but it is quite similar. Begich had the fewest amount of _first_ place votes, so was eliminated first. However, Begich was ranked ahead of Palin (and Pelota for that matter) on more ballots than vice-versa.

jpmoral 4y ago
> Begich had the fewest amount of _first_ place votes, so was eliminated first. Ah, I misunderstood that part. Under Australian rules voters who ranked Begich first would have had their second choices promoted to first and added to the respective candidates. In this case ~27k for Palin and ~15.5k for Peltola. Then the totals are compared. Looking at it that way it's not so clear cut that it was unfair that Peltola was declared the winner. I think reasonable arguments can be made either way. One thing though is that on Australian ballots all candidates must be ranked.
- wnoise 4y ago
  > Under Australian rules voters who ranked Begich first would have had their second choices promoted to first and added to the respective candidates. In this case ~27k for Palin and ~15.5k for Peltola. Then the totals are compared. Exactly what happened. Palin was a spoiler -- had she not run, Begich would ha e won instead. > One thing though is that on Australian ballots all candidates must be ranked. That's kind of ridiculous. It's quite unwieldy and leads to many spoiled ballots. And I don't think forcing ordering past the point of caring really changes anything.