I would say that at least some weren’t confused, looked at the Other Dan Sullivan’s web site, and liked it because of being folksy and moderate.
What confuses me is that Gerald Heikes is getting 2.3 percent of the first-choice vote despite having no senate campaign web presence I can find. He’s a perennial candidate for office in Alaska, so maybe some remember him from running state-wide before.
One small insight into why such candidates get votes: My daughter has a bit of an aversion to the two party system and might pick one of the minor candidates on purpose.
In the Senate race, 44% of voters ranking Republican Gerald Heikes first had their vote count for Dan S. Sullivan, compared to 16% for Mary Peltola. 33% of voters ranking Daniel J. Sullivan below had their vote count for Mary Peltola, compared to 22% for Dan S. Sullivan. The table below shows a large number of Democrat-leaning voters who rank Daniel J. Sullivan first and Peltola second, suggesting some form of protest vote
No idea how that plays out in the NYT analysis but it confirms that of the Daniel J Sullivan first more have Pelota second.
The difference in Washington- and also Florida, is that the “also named” were paid to run. AFAIK, the second Dan Sullivan was not paid. Maybe recruited , but apparently not by Pelota.
I think she’ll resign a day before her term ends, and Tim Walz would appoint whoever Amy Klobuchar wanted in the first place. That way the new Minnesota senator would get a one day seniority headstart over all of the other newly elected Senators.
On the other hand, perhaps the appointment will be after Senator-elect Peggy Flanagan is sworn in. That way Flanagan would be the senior Senator of Minnesota, and the appointed Senator would be the junior Senator. (The appointed Senator would face an election in November 2027 to fill the remainder of Klobuchar’s term.)
One rumor in Minnesota was Walz was persuaded not to run for a third term as governor (probably a smart decision) after Klobuchar promised that she would appoint Walz to take her seat once she resigns to become governor. When asked if he would want that, Walz famously said, “I’d rather eat glass.”
That’s definitely the sense that I have. Between the wringer of running for VP two years ago, the fraud scandals under his administration, and Minnesota being in the crosshairs of ICE, I have to suspect that he just wants to be done with it.
Sure. A lot of the more progressive people are down on the establishment, centrist democrats but it’s not the centrists’ fault because they are just practicing their particular politics, which are center-left.
As with every other problem in American politics (except money and Citizens United) this comes down to us not having a viable multi-party system. Of course progressive Dems want something well to the left of centrist Dems. Just like how it is with extreme-right and the center-right. Why is that surprising?
What is surprising to me is that we expect a single party to appeal to so many different positions. Why would you expect a Schumer to support an AOC? Why should he? Only reason is because of this awful kabuki of acting like two parties can satisfy the needs of voters who naturally split into 3-5 parties. That means a whole lot of Americans can’t vote for a party that reflects their desires and ideals.
Now I feel like an idiot - I heard the “social experiment” reason before any follow up and didn’t question it because what partisan is trying to weaken McMorrow of all people, but obviously it would be polymarket bullshit.
OK, sure, there are at least some voters who genuinely preferred him. Though, remember that the confusion can go both ways: There are doubtless some who preferred Other Dan Sullivan, but who accidentally voted for First Dan Sullivan.
That’s also definitely a thing, and we’d expect those voters to put the two independent candidates (in either order) as their first two choices. Actually, I’m surprised that there are so few, given that IRV lets them make that protest vote without real cost. But then, whom (if anyone) did they put for their third choice?
Before we had lucrative prediction markets, that would have been true. And it might the reason. But… who really benefits from sinking a candidate who probably wasn’t doing real well anyway? My money is on polymarket shenanigans. And we’ll be seeing more of that going forward.
Same. And also, because Alaska has ranked choice voting, “spoilers” don’t really matter. Anyone who really wants the major candidate Sullivan, and isn’t completely certain which he is, can just vote for both.
I expected the second choices of both the other Sullivan and the weird perennial candidate to break for Sullivan. If that’s not true, I’m cautiously hopeful about Alaska.
As I’m reading the numbers, Peltola did slightly better with Spoiler Dan’s second choices but not as good with second choices from the Heikes voters. She has to make up about 4,700 votes from the remaining, what, 64,000 to win.
I don’t know enough about Alaska voting patterns to say whether she’s in good shape or bad shape. I’m just glad that we’re not all sitting here watching this with Senate control on the line.
I wonder how well ordinary Alaskans understand their RCV system?
It was adopted in 2020 on a narrow vote by a citizen’s initiative. and has only been used in the 2022, 2024, and 2026 federal elections. After the initial 2022 experience it was almost repealed by initiative vote in 2024. A similar repeal measure was on the 2026 ballot and as of the latest reporting appears to be failing also. But that’s not a final confirmed result.
If the vast majority of ballots vote only a first choice we can maybe conclude that by and large they don’t understand it.
It’s instructive that 19 states have banned the practice even for local elections. Those states mostly being the reactionary or ignorant ones. But I repeat myself. Reminds me of the old ads for Guinness beer with the tagline: “I’ve never tried it and I don’t like it.”
By itself, that makes sense, because Spoiler Dan strikes me as a true centrist, while Heikes is (and I do not use this word lightly, or use it to describe a normal dictator) a fascist:
Do the 2.3 percent who are voting for Heikes vote based on stuff like this? Or do they maybe have different information sources I am missing?
I have a friend who phonebanked for an unsuccessful ranked choice ballot measure in 2020 and a ton of the people he talked to said they just don’t think it’s “fair” that your first vote can be for a loser and they just give you “another vote” or they like voting for one person and don’t want to be disadvantaged as a result.
Some people are also reasonably skeptical that the formula won’t do something unfair, but (at least in Massachusetts) the explanation for why it’s not overly complicated and you mostly don’t need to worry about beyond just ranking your candidates in order of preference is itself a bit convoluted.
There are some minor dynamics where there is a reason to vote strategically but it isn’t always easy to see, although this is sucha smaller problem than FPTP it not worth being concerned about.
Some of Spoiler Dan’s second choices actually went to Heikes. And almost 40% of his ballots were exhausted (no second choices made).
Alaska voters may not grasp the nuances of the second and third choice allocations (indeed, I’ve spoken to smart people who have trouble with the whole concept as well) but nine-year-olds understand “first choice, second choice.”
The arguments are more about whether or not RCV is an improved selection system over FPTP. And the people who study this stuff for a living may not agree on the optimal voting system but they’re pretty much unanimous that FPTP is the worst.
Or possibly not much in the way of information sources at all.
Years ago, before I was online (and one of the major reasons why I got online), NY had a minor party on the ballot who I’d never heard of and who hadn’t been covered in any of the papers I was reading (and whose name I’ve since forgotten). I asked a person next to me in line “what’s the X party, anyway?’
The answer I got was “I don’t know, but I’m voting for them.”
I don’t expect they thought the unknown had a chance of winning (they got some tiny percentage of the vote); but I remember thinking, that’s not really a good idea.
