You know, I wonder about this. In a heavily gerrymandered district, I think it all comes down to the first primary election. Once he won that, it was his seat forever. Reason being, most of the electorate isn't paying attention and just vote for the R or D, and since it is a heavy R leaning district, most don't put any more thought into it than that.
Which is why I'll stump for ranked choice voting again. It won't produce even a centrist D from that district (long term), but it will cause people in the general election to wake up (woke!) and decide which flavor of Republican they want.
I'll reiterate that, though I've only gone through it once, my experience in the 2022 midterm elections with Alaska's new ranked-choice voting system was quite agreeable.
Looking at the vote-tally data provided by the state, you can see how, in the case of Lisa Murkowski* specifically, RCV allowed Democrats to help re-elect the non-Trump candidate, despite Trump and the Republican party actively working against her.
It also allowed the election of the first female US rep. for the state and the first Alaska Native member of Congress. She's also pretty great.
I'm quite convinced that, if not for RCV, I would currently be represented in the House by Sarah-forking-Palin and my new senator would be of the MAGA variety!
It may only be one instance of RCV, but in my opinion it was a helluva result!
I'm an outsider and we're mainly talking theory, but with those caveats aside, I think it worked as designed for Senate, and for the house it didn't work because Republicans were stupid about it.
My understanding is that Alaska is about 60% R. as such, it should have R representation for statewide offices. You got that in the Senate and the minority got to have a say (big plus for RCV). In the house, you should have the same basic situation. My read is that you don't because Palin was so toxic. Two normalish Republicans running would have given the seat to the Republicans.
The important part is that both scenarios can be considered as working, if you take a longer view. The parties and the electorate need both lessons to better understand how the system works. In the future it should shake out better with moderate republicans who are acceptable (enough) to a big chunk of democrats prevailing. The hope though is that it will drive more engagement and thought. People on both sides will hopefully start doing some thinking about differences between the various politicians. Maybe even get away from the duopoly of the two parties. Blue will never vote for Red and vice-versa, but what about the Alaska Orange party? People will actually have to think about that, and can be safe in giving it anything up to a first place vote confident that they aren't 'wasting' their voice.
IтАЩd like a rule that no district is allowed to be drawn that is more than 10 points in favour of any party тАж though that would probably be impossible in Wyoming.
I have to admit, that describes me these days. But it wasnтАЩt always true. Polarization is very hard to reverse, IтАЩm guessing. It seems to have a life of its own at some point. Self fulfilling.
And most of them just clamp hands over ears at any sort of contradiction. (I'm sure you know, just adding my take to your point for the audience.)
At one point early in the pandemic I was very gently trying to persuade an anti masker so I cited then-Surgeon General Ronnie Jackson with a link to a Hill article, and the immediate response was "that looks like a fake news site".
It was pointless but I linked to a Fox article and then she just flatly declared she wasn't going to do it.
It's not just ignorance that animates MAGA, it's aggressive proactive ignorance.
You know, I wonder about this. In a heavily gerrymandered district, I think it all comes down to the first primary election. Once he won that, it was his seat forever. Reason being, most of the electorate isn't paying attention and just vote for the R or D, and since it is a heavy R leaning district, most don't put any more thought into it than that.
Which is why I'll stump for ranked choice voting again. It won't produce even a centrist D from that district (long term), but it will cause people in the general election to wake up (woke!) and decide which flavor of Republican they want.
I'll reiterate that, though I've only gone through it once, my experience in the 2022 midterm elections with Alaska's new ranked-choice voting system was quite agreeable.
Looking at the vote-tally data provided by the state, you can see how, in the case of Lisa Murkowski* specifically, RCV allowed Democrats to help re-elect the non-Trump candidate, despite Trump and the Republican party actively working against her.
It also allowed the election of the first female US rep. for the state and the first Alaska Native member of Congress. She's also pretty great.
I'm quite convinced that, if not for RCV, I would currently be represented in the House by Sarah-forking-Palin and my new senator would be of the MAGA variety!
It may only be one instance of RCV, but in my opinion it was a helluva result!
I'm an outsider and we're mainly talking theory, but with those caveats aside, I think it worked as designed for Senate, and for the house it didn't work because Republicans were stupid about it.
My understanding is that Alaska is about 60% R. as such, it should have R representation for statewide offices. You got that in the Senate and the minority got to have a say (big plus for RCV). In the house, you should have the same basic situation. My read is that you don't because Palin was so toxic. Two normalish Republicans running would have given the seat to the Republicans.
The important part is that both scenarios can be considered as working, if you take a longer view. The parties and the electorate need both lessons to better understand how the system works. In the future it should shake out better with moderate republicans who are acceptable (enough) to a big chunk of democrats prevailing. The hope though is that it will drive more engagement and thought. People on both sides will hopefully start doing some thinking about differences between the various politicians. Maybe even get away from the duopoly of the two parties. Blue will never vote for Red and vice-versa, but what about the Alaska Orange party? People will actually have to think about that, and can be safe in giving it anything up to a first place vote confident that they aren't 'wasting' their voice.
How about we just redo the legislative map so itтАЩs fair? Just saying.
IтАЩd like a rule that no district is allowed to be drawn that is more than 10 points in favour of any party тАж though that would probably be impossible in Wyoming.
Yeah, there's a lot of truth here. A lot of people vote for their team. If you're on the team, you're good. If not, you're bad.
I have to admit, that describes me these days. But it wasnтАЩt always true. Polarization is very hard to reverse, IтАЩm guessing. It seems to have a life of its own at some point. Self fulfilling.
Not to mention, primaries usually only attract the most radical voters.
Well, maybe the not radical voters should start getting off their lazy duffs and vote in primaries. No?
Agreed..:)
And most of them just clamp hands over ears at any sort of contradiction. (I'm sure you know, just adding my take to your point for the audience.)
At one point early in the pandemic I was very gently trying to persuade an anti masker so I cited then-Surgeon General Ronnie Jackson with a link to a Hill article, and the immediate response was "that looks like a fake news site".
It was pointless but I linked to a Fox article and then she just flatly declared she wasn't going to do it.
It's not just ignorance that animates MAGA, it's aggressive proactive ignorance.
The figured it was probably something like that.
It's people like him that we can still reach.