Comment by hunterb123 | Hacker News Reader

Comment by hunterb123 | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

No, it's simple addition for all candidates.

You either got a vote from a person or not, leave it at that.

Currently you have Alaska being majority red but Pelosi losing to a Democrat, I wonder how that happened.

But certain people when they lose want to change things, whether it's advocating abolishing the Electoral College or implementing a complex RCV system to create arbitrary rules to tip the scales to candidates they favor.

-- edit @mikeyouse --

No I'm not mad, as I said I prefer to live in a place that has a simpler voting system where it's easy for everyone verify the vote and be confident in the system.

I'm maybe more disappointed in people allowing it and being that naive.

Do you feel the same way about the tax code or should just voting be complicated?

How do you feel about the EC system? Were you advocating getting rid of it recently?

There's a certain group of people wanting to flip the game table up here recently.

-- edit @ceejayoz --

So the flipside of your statement would be you "grumping" about the simpler system.

Has RCV solved the split vote issue? Hint: no it hasn't. Nor was that ever really a problem, just an excuse to implement RCV.

-- edit @esoterica --

That's an extremely partisan take and not at all what I've heard from Alaskan friends. Pelosi is well respected in the party and in the state, no matter what liberals think, they usually mix her up with Tina Fey anyways.

Peltola won by beating palin in a head to head after begich was eliminated. In a traditional fptp election palin would have beat begich in a primary before losing to peltola, literally the exact same result as rcv except split into two stages instead of an instant runoff.

Palin lost because she’s a national laughing stock and a terrible candidate. Not because of RCV. Instead of acknowledging that you are resorting to inventing nonsensical conspiracy theories that can be disproven by performing the “simple addition” you keep talking about.

> No, it's simple addition for all candidates.

Which can lead a candidate with a dedicated but small fanbase getting 30% of the vote but winning because the other side has a couple candidates running. The precise sort of problem you're currently grumping about.

Do you have any evidence for the claim that RCV was introduced in Alaska for the purpose of bringing a Democrat to the to power?

No because the system is overly complicated, thus the lack of trust in the system because it can't be validated by a common person.

But if a heavy blue state elected a red governor (especially with a popular blue opponent) out of nowhere immediately after switching to a new voting system people here would be suspicious right?

But because it happens that blue candidates are winning in areas they weren't before, everyone here is fine looking the other way and even defending it.

https://ballotpedia.org/Alaska_Ballot_Measure_2,_Top-Four_Ra...

It was a ballot initiative that passed by will of the people. Who are you to argue about their decision?

Yes as I said I choose not to live there and would never live in a place where the voters choose such a system.

It's their choice, but it's a stupid choice. Personally it seems they were naive or even lied to about the outcome.

I can argue their decision because of the 1A. Same as you can argue against their previous system...

> Currently you have Alaska being majority red but Pelosi losing to a Democrat, I wonder how that happened.

..

> But certain people when they lose want to change things, whether it's advocating abolishing the Electoral College or implementing a complex RCV system to create arbitrary rules to tip the scales to candidates they favor.

So you're mad that a candidate that had less popular support won the election in Alaska but the system where there's been one Republican popular vote winner and 3 Republican presidents in the past 30 years is sacrosanct?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com