2024 National & State Elections (Not POTUS)

[Mulberry Heel]

Honestly I don't see how the Democrats take the Senate again for at least a decade, maybe two. Nearly all these states are baked in red.

1. Alaska
2. Idaho
3. Utah
4. Montana
5. Wyoming
6. ND
7. SD
8. Nebraska
9. Kansas
10. Oklahoma
11. Texas
12. Lousiana
13. Alabama
14. Mississippi
15. Indiana
16. Tennessee
17. Kentucky
18. WV
19. Ohio
20 South Carolina
21. Florida
22. Iowa
23. Missouri
24. Arkansas

And all you need is two pickups in any Swing state or blue state with Split Senate seats.

I know you can argue Texas and Florida are swing states, but I need to see it to believe it. Tester looks gone and they could lose Brown. Those would be two lost seats that are not coming back in probably at least 3 voting cycles or ever.

The problem is that's still not a majority for Republicans, and if Republicans gain control of the Senate and turn out to be as extreme as it appears - say pushing a national abortion ban - then I think the remaining 26 states might start voting just as blue as those states do red. Basically we're facing a collision of two facts - an antiquated political system that gives rural red states more power in the Senate than their populations would justify, and a society that is moving increasingly to the left on a whole host of issues like abortion, gay rights, etc. Something is going to have to give one way or another.

 

[heel17]

Honestly I don't see how the Democrats take the Senate again for at least a decade, maybe two. Nearly all these states are baked in red.

1. Alaska
2. Idaho
3. Utah
4. Montana
5. Wyoming
6. ND
7. SD
8. Nebraska
9. Kansas
10. Oklahoma
11. Texas
12. Lousiana
13. Alabama
14. Mississippi
15. Indiana
16. Tennessee
17. Kentucky
18. WV
19. Ohio
20 South Carolina
21. Florida
22. Iowa
23. Missouri
24. Arkansas

And all you need is two pickups in any Swing state or blue state with Split Senate seats.

I know you can argue Texas and Florida are swing states, but I need to see it to believe it. Tester looks gone and they could lose Brown. Those would be two lost seats that are not coming back in probably at least 3 voting cycles or ever.

I'll choose to be optimistic here and note that politics are never static and coalitions are always changing. We seem to have been in a stasis in terms of trends for the past 10+ years with Obama -> Trump eras, but there is obviously a constant incentive on both sides to win elections and demographics will continue to shift.

Off of this list I could see AK, UT, KS, TX, and MT (yes, I know Tester is there now and will likely lose) as long term pick-ups. Younger, less (evangelical) religious, and/or higher 4-year degree levels. Throw in NC and those are 12 potential pick-ups in the next 5-10 years to offset slipping in other areas. In short, I agree it may be 3-4 cycles but don't expect two decades for the Dems to be in contention for the Senate

 

[superrific]

The party is going to have to get creative. Either they can fashion a message that stays true to their core values as Dems while appealing to rural areas, or they can try running independent candidates who will caucus with Dems.

Obviously the first option is a tough ask for a number of reasons. The second option may bear fruit, we’ll see with Osborn in NE. The Democratic brand is just so toxic in these areas that independent or third-party candidates may be the only option.

Or abolishing the Senate of course.

We had the chance to fix America when we had a majority in both houses and the presidency. Alas, Sinema fucked us all. At a minimum we could have made DC a state and locked in two additional senate votes.

But there's a loophole in the constitution right now; someone is going to exploit it and it's probably not going to be us. It should have been us. If I had been president, it would have been us.

It's often thought that amending the constitution requires a 2/3 vote in the Senate and the House and 3/4 of the states. Not true. It only requires a bare majority in both houses and the presidency, and balls of steel. There are no minimum standards for statehood. People talking about making DC a state aren't thinking big enough. Carve 100 states out of it. Admit them to the union, and now DC controls all levers of the government. Then you can pass whatever constitutional amendments you want, basically immediately.

What I have in mind is a pre-packaged constitution. The legislation would create new states. Then the next piece of legislation would include various constitutional amendments. Waive the regular rules, because after all the chamber is now controlled by the new states. Introduce and pass constitutional amendments, the last of which would collapse the new DC states into a single state, add PR, preserve 50 states by smushing together the Dakotas and Vermont and New Hampshire, and then require a constitutional amendment for any further addition of states.

Bang. We could get rid of all the bullshit. Electoral college. State sovereign immunity. Supreme Court. We could even keep the Senate; just that every state gets one Senate and the other 50 Senators would be allocated by population. It doesn't even need to be directly proportional. States could get tiered representation based on population; CA would get 4, TX, FL and NY 3, etc. Whatever the right formula, it could be done.

The Pubs are going to do this eventually, so we should have done it when we had the chance. Fuck Sinema. Also Biden would never have done it, but I wonder if Kamala would (if she ever has the chance). She would go down in history as one of our greatest presidents if she did.

 

[superrific]

I'll choose to be optimistic here and note that politics are never static and coalitions are always changing. We seem to have been in a stasis in terms of trends for the past 10+ years with Obama -> Trump eras, but there is obviously a constant incentive on both sides to win elections and demographics will continue to shift.

Off of this list I could see AK, UT, KS, TX, and MT (yes, I know Tester is there now and will likely lose) as long term pick-ups. Younger, less (evangelical) religious, and/or higher 4-year degree levels. Throw in NC and those are 12 potential pick-ups in the next 5-10 years to offset slipping in other areas. In short, I agree it may be 3-4 cycles but don't expect two decades for the Dems to be in contention for the Senate

If Trump wins and does what he says he's going to do -- round up the migrants and tariff everything -- then I would expect 2026 to be a bloodbath of such epic proportions that the Dems would pick up at least 6 Senate seats and possibly all of them save the most revanchist states like AL and WV.

 

[RockyMtnHoo]

I know it wasn’t especially popular here when mentioned a couple of weeks back, but if we find ourselves in a situation where Harris wins, and Pubs have a 1 vote majority in the Senate, I’d find a Cabinet spot for Susan Collins. Maine has a Dem Governor who would appoint a replacement, and Collins is at an age that she may not run again in 2026…she’d be 80 when that term completes in 2032.

 

[dukeman92]

Have any polls had her behind though?

Not sure. But recent trends seem to put it in play. I was really hopeful that she would crush the blue wall states.

 

[gregh1]

RCV news

- Idaho. Oregon and Colorado each have a ballot measure this election to adopt Ranked Choice Voting.

Regarding Idaho's:

First, this measure would abolish Idaho’s party primaries. Under current law, political parties nominate candidates through primary elections in which party members vote for a candidate to represent the party in the general election. The initiative creates a system where all candidates participate in a top-four primary and voters may vote on all candidates. The top four vote-earners for each office would advance to the general election. Candidates could list any affiliation on the ballot, but would not represent political parties, and need not be associated with the party they name. Second, the measure would require a ranked-choice voting system for the general election. Under current law, voters may select one candidate for each office, and the candidate with the most votes wins. Under the ranked-choice voting system, voters rank candidates on the ballot in order of preference, but need not rank every candidate. The votes are counted in successive rounds, and the candidate receiving the fewest votes in each round is eliminated. A vote for an eliminated candidate will transfer to the voter’s next-highest-ranked active candidate. The candidate with the most votes in the final round wins.[7]

[td width="20px"]

”​

[/td]​

- Nevada voted in 2022 to adopt top-5 primary and RCV, but amendments like these must be approved at two successive general elections, so final approval is a ballot measure this yr.

- Alaska adopted ^ the system Idaho/CO are proposing in 2020, but now they have a ballot measure to repeal, ditch it and revert back to the old system.

- Missouri has a ballot measure to PROHIBIT RCV.

 

[superrific]

I'll choose to be optimistic here and note that politics are never static and coalitions are always changing. We seem to have been in a stasis in terms of trends for the past 10+ years with Obama -> Trump eras, but there is obviously a constant incentive on both sides to win elections and demographics will continue to shift.

Off of this list I could see AK, UT, KS, TX, and MT (yes, I know Tester is there now and will likely lose) as long term pick-ups. Younger, less (evangelical) religious, and/or higher 4-year degree levels. Throw in NC and those are 12 potential pick-ups in the next 5-10 years to offset slipping in other areas. In short, I agree it may be 3-4 cycles but don't expect two decades for the Dems to be in contention for the Senate

UT? Seriously? There's not even a functioning Dem party in Utah. They've been nominating Republicans (e.g. Evan McMullin) to run for Senate.

AK will never go red because of its absolute reliance on fossil fuels. Well, won't go red as long as the Pubs' energy policy is drill drill drill

TX? Maybe. I'll believe it when I see it, but it's not impossible to imagine. But the Dems have to clean up messaging with Latinos. And I don't see the time frame there as 5-10 years. Maybe 10-15. In 2018, in a red wave election, with the best Dem candidate in a while (Beto) going up against the most reviled Pub candidate (Cruz), Cruz won and it wasn't really close. Close by TX standards but 2.5 points isn't really close for an election and again, that was the best shot we've had in a long time. I'll happily eat crow if I'm wrong, and the Dems absolutely should be spending money in TX (you can't win a state if you don't invest there), but it's still entirely speculative.

I can't speak to KS. I have my doubts. The Republican Senators from that state most recently won their elections 60-39 and 55-41, so there's a LOT of work there. Don't be fooled by the gubernatorial election. MA has had Republican governors. MD had one. CA had one not that long ago (Governator).

That leaves us with NC. Absolutely 100% the best pickup opportunity along with the Senate seat the Dems will win when Susan Collins retires. And RonJon's seat in WI (though that's going to be a tough one).

***
On the flip side, we're currently holding many seats that are tenuous. If you look at the current swing states, Dems improbably control almost all of the Senate seats there. 2 in AZ, 2 in NV, 5 of 6 in the Blue Wall, and 2 in GA against 2 in NC and RonJon. That's 11-3. If those states remain tossups, it seems unlikely that the Dems can continue to hold all those seats. The GOP definitely has suffered from own goals in those states. They probably aren't going to nominate Herschel Walker again, and since Warnock could barely beat him, I have my doubts about Warnock's longevity (though he will have more incumbency going forward). I don't know if the GOP can find decent candidates in AZ, but I would not assume that we will be running against Blake Masters and Kelly Lake for all eternity.

And of course, WV is gone and it looks like MT is as well.

Obviously if the country shifts left (or pro-Dem, which isn't the same thing), this all can change. But if you assume that we're stuck with this electorate for a while, it's looking grim for the Dem hopes in the Senate. Which is why it was criminal not to make DC a state -- even if you disagree with my more radical plan to use DC as a constitutional convention.

 

[superrific]

RCV news

- Idaho. Oregon and Colorado each have a ballot measure this election to adopt Ranked Choice Voting.
- Nevada voted in 2022 to adopt top-5 primary and RCV, but amendments like these must be approved at two successive general elections, so final approval is a ballot measure this yr.

What's so great about RCV? In theory, it could allow third parties to gain footholds because votes for them won't be "wasted."

But in practice, it's more likely to give traction to billionaires who can self-fund their candidacy, go around the party apparatus and jump into races as a lark or if they feel like it. I consider it quite likely that Elon Musk could win a Senate election in a lot of states, though he'd probably not win a nomination in most of them. This problem is exacerbated by the way RCV rewards candidates for losing finishes. Let's suppose, for instance, that Musk decided to run for Senate in Texas as an independent. Let's also assume that the Dem actually wins a plurality of votes. And then this happens:

first place votes: Dem 48, Musk 8, Pub 44
second place votes: Musk 40, Pub 35, Dem 25
Last place: Musk 52, Pub 21, Dem 27

Pub wins because all most Pubs go Pub->Musk-> Dem, whereas more Dems go Dem-Pub-Musk.

We talk about the problem of our two-party system being the necessary result of our first-past-the-post election system. And that's real, for sure. But it's ALSO true that, because of our campaign finance "system," the third parties that do pop up are little more than campaigns by rich and/or famous candidates. It's no coincidence that the only significant third party candidate in my lifetime was Ross Perot, a self-financing billionaire. This is a problem we don't usually confront because of the election system, but if we change that system, we have to be prepared for this effect to raise its head.

Already, there's a scourge of bored billionaires who try to buy their way into Congress. McCormick in PA is only the latest example. The saving grace is that they have to go through parties to get that nomination, and it doesn't always work. If not, I would assume we will get a Congress disproportionately filled with weird billionaires.

 

[gregh1]

What's so great about RCV? In theory, it could allow third parties to gain footholds because votes for them won't be "wasted."

But in practice, it's more likely to give traction to billionaires who can self-fund their candidacy, go around the party apparatus and jump into races as a lark or if they feel like it. I consider it quite likely that Elon Musk could win a Senate election in a lot of states, though he'd probably not win a nomination in most of them. This problem is exacerbated by the way RCV rewards candidates for losing finishes. Let's suppose, for instance, that Musk decided to run for Senate in Texas as an independent. Let's also assume that the Dem actually wins a plurality of votes. And then this happens:

first place votes: Dem 48, Musk 8, Pub 44
second place votes: Musk 40, Pub 35, Dem 25
Last place: Musk 52, Pub 21, Dem 27

Pub wins because all most Pubs go Pub->Musk-> Dem, whereas more Dems go Dem-Pub-Musk.

We talk about the problem of our two-party system being the necessary result of our first-past-the-post election system. And that's real, for sure. But it's ALSO true that, because of our campaign finance "system," the third parties that do pop up are little more than campaigns by rich and/or famous candidates. It's no coincidence that the only significant third party candidate in my lifetime was Ross Perot, a self-financing billionaire. This is a problem we don't usually confront because of the election system, but if we change that system, we have to be prepared for this effect to raise its head.

Already, there's a scourge of bored billionaires who try to buy their way into Congress. McCormick in PA is only the latest example. The saving grace is that they have to go through parties to get that nomination, and it doesn't always work. If not, I would assume we will get a Congress disproportionately filled with weird billionaires.

First, who is #4? Can my second choice be someone other than Trump/Musk? Another billionaire who might actually not be as evil - like Tom Steyer or a younger Bloomberg? Or is it a lesser Evil Republican (Larry Hogan for example)? Or is it the second most popular person from the Dem "convention", who in theory is fairly centrist for sake of competition?

Second, How many dems would vote Dem-Pub-Musk if Trump was the Pub? Musk could be horrible in many ways, but at least he isn't a climate denier. And it could be lies, but Musk would very much try to be a centrist. Heck, Trump himself theoretically would need to "moderate" to make sure Dems are voting Dem-Pub-Musk. At the same time, if Musk is truly so Evil that Dems would vote for Repub over him, then would he even have made it onto top 4 versus some Moderate $-backed candidates?

Finally, regarding "I would assume we will get a Congress disproportionately filled with weird billionaires." - most of Congress is swayed by these billionaires or corp money anyway. Financing is a curse regardless.

 

[heelinhell]

I know it wasn’t especially popular here when mentioned a couple of weeks back, but if we find ourselves in a situation where Harris wins, and Pubs have a 1 vote majority in the Senate, I’d find a Cabinet spot for Susan Collins. Maine has a Dem Governor who would appoint a replacement, and Collins is at an age that she may not run again in 2026…she’d be 80 when that term completes in 2032.

Excellent idea !

Create a Department of Concern and appoint her as Secretary

 

[Zoo_View]

If the Republicans take the Senate, Susan Collins is likely Chair of Appropriations.

She’s not leaving that to be Secretary of a relatively minor Cabinet department.

 

[RockyMtnHoo]

Excellent idea !

Create a Department of Concern and appoint her as Secretary

They could make her the Secretary of Bake Sales for all I care, as long as Dems keep control of the Senate.

 

[superrific]

Excellent idea !

Create a Department of Concern and appoint her as Secretary

LOL. I was going to say the exact same thing, right down to the department name. If I was Susan Collins, I would be mortified that my claim to fame was being "concerned" but I guess that's why I'm not Susan Collins. One of the reasons, at least.

 

[superrific]

First, who is #4? Can my second choice be someone other than Trump/Musk? Another billionaire who might actually not be as evil - like Tom Steyer or a younger Bloomberg? Or is it a lesser Evil Republican (Larry Hogan for example)? Or is it the second most popular person from the Dem "convention", who in theory is fairly centrist for sake of competition?

Second, How many dems would vote Dem-Pub-Musk if Trump was the Pub? Musk could be horrible in many ways, but at least he isn't a climate denier. And it could be lies, but Musk would very much try to be a centrist. Heck, Trump himself theoretically would need to "moderate" to make sure Dems are voting Dem-Pub-Musk. At the same time, if Musk is truly so Evil that Dems would vote for Repub over him, then would he even have made it onto top 4 versus some Moderate $-backed candidates?

Finally, regarding "I would assume we will get a Congress disproportionately filled with weird billionaires." - most of Congress is swayed by these billionaires or corp money anyway. Financing is a curse regardless.

The way I understand RCV, it doesn't matter if there are 10 candidates wedged in there with Musk, Pub and Dem. They will fall away quickly. Admittedly, I've never bothered to look at the specific details of different RCV voting systems.

I was giving a hypothetical example. We don't have enough experience with RCV to know if that's a realistic or far-fetched example. I read an article a few weeks ago, I think, about Colorado's ranked-choice ballot referendum, and how its chief backer is a billionaire who is expected to run for office if it passes. So at least some billionaires think it's a good idea for them.

While Congress is swayed by big money interests, it's not completely beholden to them. More importantly, I think what we've been seeing recently is that there's a difference between being a billionaire and being beholden to them. Billionaires can sit in their sycophantic echo chambers and get really weird and megalomaniacal. If they have to give marching orders to a candidate or elected official, that person at least gets to sanity check them.

To be clear, I'm not arguing against RCV. I gave that impression earlier, perhaps, but I don't know enough to say that it's bad. What I'm really saying is that I see enough downsides and not so many upsides to wonder if it's good? Other than its potential to boost third parties (which is untested and by far from a foregone conclusion), what is good about it?

 

[heel17]

UT? Seriously? There's not even a functioning Dem party in Utah. They've been nominating Republicans (e.g. Evan McMullin) to run for Senate.

AK will never go red because of its absolute reliance on fossil fuels. Well, won't go red as long as the Pubs' energy policy is drill drill drill

TX? Maybe. I'll believe it when I see it, but it's not impossible to imagine. But the Dems have to clean up messaging with Latinos. And I don't see the time frame there as 5-10 years. Maybe 10-15. In 2018, in a red wave election, with the best Dem candidate in a while (Beto) going up against the most reviled Pub candidate (Cruz), Cruz won and it wasn't really close. Close by TX standards but 2.5 points isn't really close for an election and again, that was the best shot we've had in a long time. I'll happily eat crow if I'm wrong, and the Dems absolutely should be spending money in TX (you can't win a state if you don't invest there), but it's still entirely speculative.

I can't speak to KS. I have my doubts. The Republican Senators from that state most recently won their elections 60-39 and 55-41, so there's a LOT of work there. Don't be fooled by the gubernatorial election. MA has had Republican governors. MD had one. CA had one not that long ago (Governator).

That leaves us with NC. Absolutely 100% the best pickup opportunity along with the Senate seat the Dems will win when Susan Collins retires. And RonJon's seat in WI (though that's going to be a tough one).

***
On the flip side, we're currently holding many seats that are tenuous. If you look at the current swing states, Dems improbably control almost all of the Senate seats there. 2 in AZ, 2 in NV, 5 of 6 in the Blue Wall, and 2 in GA against 2 in NC and RonJon. That's 11-3. If those states remain tossups, it seems unlikely that the Dems can continue to hold all those seats. The GOP definitely has suffered from own goals in those states. They probably aren't going to nominate Herschel Walker again, and since Warnock could barely beat him, I have my doubts about Warnock's longevity (though he will have more incumbency going forward). I don't know if the GOP can find decent candidates in AZ, but I would not assume that we will be running against Blake Masters and Kelly Lake for all eternity.

And of course, WV is gone and it looks like MT is as well.

Obviously if the country shifts left (or pro-Dem, which isn't the same thing), this all can change. But if you assume that we're stuck with this electorate for a while, it's looking grim for the Dem hopes in the Senate. Which is why it was criminal not to make DC a state -- even if you disagree with my more radical plan to use DC as a constitutional convention.

Fair points on most of these - it really comes down to how much you subscribe to educational attainment being one the biggest cleavages going forward. Utah (and to a lesser extent Kansas) are outliers here compared to typically "Republican" states. This also assumes continued growth in SLC and KC suburbs, and a moderating of the LDS church.

 

[gregh1]

The way I understand RCV, it doesn't matter if there are 10 candidates wedged in there with Musk, Pub and Dem. They will fall away quickly. Admittedly, I've never bothered to look at the specific details of different RCV voting systems.

I was giving a hypothetical example. We don't have enough experience with RCV to know if that's a realistic or far-fetched example. I read an article a few weeks ago, I think, about Colorado's ranked-choice ballot referendum, and how its chief backer is a billionaire who is expected to run for office if it passes. So at least some billionaires think it's a good idea for them.

While Congress is swayed by big money interests, it's not completely beholden to them. More importantly, I think what we've been seeing recently is that there's a difference between being a billionaire and being beholden to them. Billionaires can sit in their sycophantic echo chambers and get really weird and megalomaniacal. If they have to give marching orders to a candidate or elected official, that person at least gets to sanity check them.

To be clear, I'm not arguing against RCV. I gave that impression earlier, perhaps, but I don't know enough to say that it's bad. What I'm really saying is that I see enough downsides and not so many upsides to wonder if it's good? Other than its potential to boost third parties (which is untested and by far from a foregone conclusion), what is good about it?

Most of the recent state adoptions are a "top 4". Nevada is actually a "top 5". So a crap ton of folks have their names on some election ballot weeks or a month before, voters choose only one, and only the top-4 make it to the final general election for which you rank your President / governor/ senator. And obviously you rank the foursome.

Instant Runoff is the usual approach: "The candidate who receives the fewest first choice rankings is eliminated. All ballots are then retabulated, with each ballot counting as one vote for each voter's highest ranked candidate who has not been eliminated. Specifically, voters who chose the now-eliminated candidate will now have their ballots added to the totals of their second ranked candidate -- just as if they were voting in a traditional two-round runoff election -- but all other voters get to continue supporting their top candidate who remains in the race. The weakest candidates are successively eliminated and their voters' ballots are added to the totals of their next choices until two candidates remains. At this point, the candidate with a majority of votes is declared the winner. (Some jurisdictions choose to end the count as soon as one candidate has a majority of votes, as this cannot be defeated.)"

There's also a "total vote runoff" which is an interesting wrinkle to try and prevent a few quirky outcomes like the one that happened in Alaska.

The goal is less about promoting a third party and more about promoting moderate candidates versus extreme candidates regardless of party. (imo)

 

[superrific]

Most of the recent state adoptions are a "top 4". Nevada is actually a "top 5". So a crap ton of folks have their names on some election ballot weeks or a month before, voters choose only one, and only the top-4 make it to the final general election for which you rank your President / governor/ senator. And obviously you rank the foursome.

Instant Runoff is the usual approach: "The candidate who receives the fewest first choice rankings is eliminated. All ballots are then retabulated, with each ballot counting as one vote for each voter's highest ranked candidate who has not been eliminated. Specifically, voters who chose the now-eliminated candidate will now have their ballots added to the totals of their second ranked candidate -- just as if they were voting in a traditional two-round runoff election -- but all other voters get to continue supporting their top candidate who remains in the race. The weakest candidates are successively eliminated and their voters' ballots are added to the totals of their next choices until two candidates remains. At this point, the candidate with a majority of votes is declared the winner. (Some jurisdictions choose to end the count as soon as one candidate has a majority of votes, as this cannot be defeated.)"

There's also a "total vote runoff" which is an interesting wrinkle to try and prevent a few quirky outcomes like the one that happened in Alaska.

The goal is less about promoting a third party and more about promoting moderate candidates versus extreme candidates regardless of party. (imo)

1. I've not heard of a total vote runoff. What is the quirky outcome in Alaska? Was it like the hypothetical below?
2. Here's a potential problem with the instant runoff. I say potential because I'd have to think it through all the way and I haven't done that. But let me set it up:

Four candidates: two main candidates (A and B, liberal and conservative respectively) and two minor candidates C and D. The two minor candidates aren't liberal/conservative on our typically political spectrum, but let's say conservatives prefer D to C and liberals vice versa.

So the votes (there are 100) come in and A and B are almost tied: 41 for A and 40 for B. There are 20 votes outstanding, split in some way between C and D. Everyone who put B first has D second. Everyone who has A first has C second. Now, let's suppose that C and D don't tie. C gets 9 votes and D gets 10. So C is eliminated, and C's votes then go to A. A now has 50 votes so it's over. But if D had 9 votes and C has 10, then D would be eliminated first, and B would get its votes to get to 50, and B wins.

In other words, the election gets decided by which of the third party candidates gets eliminated first. THAT is a horrible vote counting system. Now, two caveats. First, I'm not sure that's correct. My intuition is that the process should be path-independent. My example says it is not. I'm not going to abandon my intuition unless I'm certain that the example is correct, and I haven't worked it all the way through with formal algebra. Also, I'm not sure how the Arrow Theorem would apply here (been a long time since I've thought about it), but that would also go against my intuition.

The second caveat is that we wouldn't want to judge a voting system solely by weird edge cases. So we'd want to know how often we could expect the vote counting order to make a difference. If it's only something that would happen once in a blue moon -- well, no system of rules is perfect. But if it could more commonly rear its head, that's a problem.

 

[gregh1]

1. I've not heard of a total vote runoff. What is the quirky outcome in Alaska? Was it like the hypothetical below?
2. Here's a potential problem with the instant runoff. I say potential because I'd have to think it through all the way and I haven't done that. But let me set it up:

Four candidates: two main candidates (A and B, liberal and conservative respectively) and two minor candidates C and D. The two minor candidates aren't liberal/conservative on our typically political spectrum, but let's say conservatives prefer D to C and liberals vice versa.

So the votes (there are 100) come in and A and B are almost tied: 41 for A and 40 for B. There are 20 votes outstanding, split in some way between C and D. Everyone who put B first has D second. Everyone who has A first has C second. Now, let's suppose that C and D don't tie. C gets 9 votes and D gets 10. So C is eliminated, and C's votes then go to A. A now has 50 votes so it's over. But if D had 9 votes and C has 10, then D would be eliminated first, and B would get its votes to get to 50, and B wins.

In other words, the election gets decided by which of the third party candidates gets eliminated first. THAT is a horrible vote counting system. Now, two caveats. First, I'm not sure that's correct. My intuition is that the process should be path-independent. My example says it is not. I'm not going to abandon my intuition unless I'm certain that the example is correct, and I haven't worked it all the way through with formal algebra. Also, I'm not sure how the Arrow Theorem would apply here (been a long time since I've thought about it), but that would also go against my intuition.

The second caveat is that we wouldn't want to judge a voting system solely by weird edge cases. So we'd want to know how often we could expect the vote counting order to make a difference. If it's only something that would happen once in a blue moon -- well, no system of rules is perfect. But if it could more commonly rear its head, that's a problem.

1. Alaska was interesting because Nick Begich was polled as winning head-to-head matchup against either Peltola (52 percent to 48 percent) or Palin (61 percent to 39 percent).

WAPO said "Alaska’s special election in August for the House of Representatives was heralded as a triumph for ranked-choice voting, because MAGA favorite Sarah Palin, a personification of polarization, could not attract enough second-choice votes from moderate Republican Nick Begich’s supporters to win. That’s true. But the way Alaska uses ranked-choice voting also caused the defeat of Begich, whom most Alaska voters preferred to Democrat Mary Peltola, the candidate who ended up winning."

2. "the election gets decided by which of the third party candidates gets eliminated first." I guess if the permutation results in one candidate hitting 50 (or whatever majority is) after the first elimination then this is true. But if the election is really that close then was this outcome really that horrible? In your example the C & D were entirely bifurcated or polarized toward A & B (meaning the left/right political views had strong carry-over), and overall one side was just slightly more favored by more voters overall (i think).

Total vote, does something like having the opening round eliminate the person with the fewest "total" votes, instead fewest 1st place. And they tally up votes in a way that gives you points from each level with weighting at each level (or something... i forget). I'm sure it has some blemishes too.

 

[superrific]

1. Alaska was interesting because Nick Begich was polled as winning head-to-head matchup against either Peltola (52 percent to 48 percent) or Palin (61 percent to 39 percent).

WAPO said "Alaska’s special election in August for the House of Representatives was heralded as a triumph for ranked-choice voting, because MAGA favorite Sarah Palin, a personification of polarization, could not attract enough second-choice votes from moderate Republican Nick Begich’s supporters to win. That’s true. But the way Alaska uses ranked-choice voting also caused the defeat of Begich, whom most Alaska voters preferred to Democrat Mary Peltola, the candidate who ended up winning."

2. "the election gets decided by which of the third party candidates gets eliminated first." I guess if the permutation results in one candidate hitting 50 (or whatever majority is) after the first elimination then this is true. But if the election is really that close then was this outcome really that horrible? In your example the C & D were entirely bifurcated or polarized toward A & B (meaning the left/right political views had strong carry-over), and overall one side was just slightly more favored by more voters overall (i think).

Total vote, does something like having the opening round eliminate the person with the fewest "total" votes, instead fewest 1st place. And they tally up votes in a way that gives you points from each level with weighting at each level (or something... i forget). I'm sure it has some blemishes too.

Thanks for 1. As for 2, it's not the outcome that would be horrible, so much as that the counting method impacts who wins. And in fairness to me, I'm just coming up with hypos off the top of my head, which is why I chose easy round numbers and close vote totals.

That said, I think you're right that this would probably only matter in very close elections. And very close elections have a certain arbitrariness to them anyway. I'd have to think more to know if it's more generally a problem outside of niche scenarios. I doubt it.

I think total vote would solve this particular problem, though again I would want to think it through before committing (or at least do a bit of algebra), and I'm not going to do that now. It doesn't really matter all that much. If RCV passed in every state, even if my concerns are valid, they just wouldn't be significant compared to some of our other vote counting methods or election laws generally. So I'm not opposed to it. I'm just not enthused about it. If I had to decide whether to vote for it, I'd give it more careful consideration. Probably I would.