That’s how preferential voting works. Murkowski has and had nothing to do with it. Without preferential voting, she would probably still win the election over Tshibaka. More than half of Alaska voters do not belong to either the D or R party, and she has more support from Democrats than the Democrat candidate does. That’s how she won the write-in … Democrats abandoned their own nominee.
There is no “right” way to conduct elections.
Alaskans narrowly adopted ranked choice voting in 2020.
Israel uses party list proportional representation.
Other jurisdictions use other measures.
If the people of Alaska voted for ranked choice, then they obviously feel that it is “right” for them.
If they don’t like it, they can always change back in a future election.
1 Like
That’s how she intends to win this time. The dems send all their 2nd choices to the dem friendly Murkowski.
The only way she could survive imo.
The Idea that Murkpwski had nothing to do with it is Bullfeathers imo.
She didn’t vote for Kavenaugh and tried to filibuster Coney Barrett? But had no problems with Jackson???
She’s a disgrace to the party. Along with Mitt, liz cheney and others.
1 Like
I would be shocked if you weren’t a big fan of Murkowski.
1 Like
no such thing. he’s a liberal, like every other democrat
1 Like
Be shocked then, I am not.
But the people of Alaska elected her to the Senate and it is their choice to make, not mine, not yours.
The preferential voting was a voter initiative. Murkowski had nothing to do with it. As I recall, she never even commented on the initiative prior to the election that established it.
He’s a liberal compared to any Conservative, but he is at the far right of the Democrats. That makes him one of the few moderate Democrats.
no, he’s a liberal who pays lip service to a conservative electorate before voting to do exactly what he told them he wouldn’t.
2 Likes
Manchin ain’t ■■■■ but a 15 minute dweller in the spotlight.
1 Like
AND…he does it every time…
McConnell votes with Biden 55% of the time:
Should republicans always vote against democrats and vice versa?
This is actually an incredibly poor way to evaluate a Senator or Representative, whether a Democrat or Republican is President.
First of all, a number of the votes are on executive branch nominees. I am a strong believer that a President of either party is entitled to the executive branch nominees of his choice and a Senator should only vote against a nominee when their are bona fide issues with the nominee’s qualifications or a bona fide ethical or legal issue exists. Senators should not oppose executive branch nominees purely on political ground, unless a nominee is well out of the mainstream.
So I would expect to see a Senator voting yes on the vast majority of the executive branch nominees that come before him.
Democratic Senators that consistently vote no on Republican Presidential executive branch nominees and Republican Senators that consistently vote no on Democratic Presidential executive branch nominees are essentially abusing their office and engaging in pointless obstruction.
A no vote should only be cast on an executive branch nominee if there is truly a problem with the nominee.
On the legislative side, it is the quality of the legislation that should decide a yes or no vote, not which side the President is on.
For example, a bill to address hate crimes against Asians during the Covid pandemic passed with the support of 94 Senators, including McConnell. That was a good vote by McConnell. The fact that the President also supported the measure does not change that fact. Biden too was on the right side of that issue.
3 Likes
Better a disgrace to the party than a disgrace to principle and country.
Hate crimes against asians were legal before that bill? REALLY?
2 Likes
Like a judge who can’t define “woman” is outside the mainstream?
2 Likes
Judges are NOT executive branch nominees.
Almost all Republicans voted for the bill, so take that issue up with them.
