Murkowski trolls Alaska Senate challenger as she takes lead in first-place votes

Just found this amusing.

Murkowski has moved to the plurality lead in first choice votes. She gave Tshibaka the business. :smile:

Counting of absentee ballots will conclude Wednesday and they will tabulate and publish the second choice votes.

Republican Buzz Kelley will be eliminated first but does not have close to enough votes to influence the final result.

Democrat Pat Chesbro will then be eliminated and her second choice votes are expected to go very heavily to Murkowski, giving Murkowski a comfortable win.

Murkowski is a Pig and this method of “voting” should be challenged as to its Constitutionality.

Why don’t you like ranked choice voting?

While I don’t like the method, it’s not my place to tell Alaska (or any other state where I don’t live) how to run their elections.

They voted in this method. Maybe in time the AK voters will decide it wasn’t what they expected it to be, and change the method. Or maybe they’re generally happy with it. It’s their call.


I wonder if it is even Constitutional.

Voting should be 1 vote per person.

They get several votes under this system and the dems ultimately are the deciding vote for Murkowski in the end which shows just how much of a rino Murkowski is. You can’t even depend on Murkowski to support gop nominated SC nominees.

Murkowski couldn’t win under a 1 vote per person system which most systems are.

It’s been challenged several times and been upheld as constitutional under the states’ authority to administer their own elections.

And actually, I’m pretty sure that nowhere in the Constitution does it say “one person one vote”.

Edit went and checked…nope…it just says members of the House and Senate are “elected by the people” and the President is elected by electors…which are selected according to whatever method the State Legislatures may dictate.

So nowhere is the principle of “one person one vote” stated.

Even then, RCV still loosely follows that principle in that every voter has the same voting rights. They all get to rank their candidates in order of preference…no voter has different rights from another.

1 Like

The Constitution also says nothing about political parties when talking about elections of Representatives or Senators, so who cares if “Dems” get to choose who the next Senator will be?

That’s their right as citizens and voters in that state.

And that’s how it should be.

Everybody DOES get one and ONLY one vote under this system.

In the first round of voting, that SINGLE vote is cast for their first choice candidate.

In the second round of voting, that SINGLE vote either remains cast for their first choice candidate OR if that candidate has been eliminated in the first round, it is then cast for their second choice candidate. And so on if a third or fourth round is required.

In each round of tabulation, each person has ONE and ONLY ONE vote. That one vote is simply transferred down their ranking list as candidates are eliminated.

1 Like

New York City has it too. Seems very confusing in that it could override popular vote and the will of the people. Outside of the Presidency, since America is a Republic, every where else when the USA was formed it used to be winning the popular vote was how Democracy run elections were generally designed. Now it seems there are a few select places around the country that now utilize this rank choice method. Does seem unnecessary. What do you like about it?

The Georgia way of doing things IF no candidate gets 50% plus 1 vote of total election day turnout sets up a run off between 1st place and runner up seems even fairer. Agree?

That is the beauty of ranked choice. It incorporates a runoff WITHIN the regular election. No need for a separate runoff.

For example, using the current election, Chase Oliver, the Libertarian candidate received 2.1% of the vote. With ranked choice voting, his voters would have had the option of ranking Walker or Warnock second. Had they been able to do that, it is possible that Walker could have won on election night on the strength of Oliver’s second choice votes, who presumably would have gone more heavily for Walker.

Ranked choice is simply incorporating the runoff into the regular election, nothing more.

1 Like

I also want to point something out about Alaskan politics.

The Alaska House has operated under a coalition of moderate Republicans and Democrats.

Interestingly, after this election, it looks like the House will go under straight Republican control but the Senate will move to coalition control.

Alaska Republican voters have a lot in common with Yankee Republican voters. As a whole, they tend to be far more moderate and reject extremist candidates.

If Republicans want to win back the Alaskan House seat, they care going to have to come up with a political duplicate of Don Young.

Which is why I have nothing against Murkowski. She simply reflects the politics of her State. Just as Sununu reflects the politics of New Hampshire and Collins reflects the politics of Maine.


As another poster already said, they are both pretty similar.

Applying Georgia’s system to Alaska won’t alleviate the complaints voiced in this thread.

It would still be (perceived as) the democrats control the outcome and it will still be “multiple votes per person”

The delay for the run off in GA does allow the public to regather their thoughts and the candidates to take another stab at convincing.

Speaking on delay, it could be argued regathering one thoughts in Georgia is a much better model. Especially since timing wise the run off gets you a 2nd bite at the apple and done not much later from when the anticipated announcement the Alaskan residents have to wait to get their final Alaska results on an election held on November 8th.

Hopefully the Alaskan voters will insist for improvements going forward…

1 Like

Ranked choice voting can help with 3rd party candidates. Today, 3rd party or NPA candidates don’t really stand a chance.

That’s the point of her “troll” tweet. Murkowski would have won by plurality under the previous system And so would have Democrat Mary Peltola in the House race. In other words, preferential voting had nothing to do with their victories.

But that’s not what the Constitution says. It says "The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof … "


It doesn’t override the popular vote. All it does is to simultaneously hold a runoff election for any race in which no candidate gets a majority of the vote.

It is neither more fair or less far. All candidates run under the same rules and all voters have the same opportunity to vote regardless of which system is used. But ranked choice voting is a lot cheaper because the State is spared the cost of conducting another election. It also speeds up the process.

If Republicans would endorse and exploit ranked choice voting in Alaska instead of calling it a liberal plot to steal elections, there is no reason why they should ever lose another close race. Democrats are only about 13% of the voters compared to 24% for Republicans. 58% of voters are unaffiliated, but mostly lean right statewide. In every race with 2, 3 or 4 on the ballot, there was only one Democrat, and in most races, no majority was attained. Had Republicans endorsed the new system and stuck together, they would have won every one of those contests.