On April 28, the Alaska Supreme Court issued an opinion in Guerin v State Division of Elections, S18457. That case concerned the special election for U.S. House that was held on August 16, 2022. The special election was needed because the incumbent U.S. House member for Alaska had died in early 2022.
After the special primary in June 2022, the candidate who had placed third, Al Gross, an independent, withdrew from the special general election. The Division of Elections let him withdraw (even though he arguably withdrew too late) but didn’t let the fifth-place finisher replace him. So the special general election only had three candidates, not four as would normally be the case in Alaska’s top-four system.
The lawsuit had been filed before the special general election by supporters of the candidate who had placed fifth in the special primary. They argued that he should have been included in the special general election. The decision surprised everyone, because it takes a position that had not been argued by either side. The Court said the state should not have let Al Gross withdraw, and that has name should have remained on the special general election. So the fifth place finisher did not deserve to be on the special general election ballot. Thanks to Ken Jacobus for this news.
THIS IS A PURGE LIST!
S-T-E-V-E
Hopefully a new election can be ordered and a conservative Republican will win this time.
The term for the special election ended in January 2023. The regular election of November 2022 controls the current congress.
Bummer. The sooner the commie is gone the better.
CANDIDATE / INCUMBENT REPLACEMENT LISTS
>>> NOOO MO SPECIAL ELECTIONS
AZ IS AGAINST ELECTIONS?
He has an extremely cockamamie and convoluted scheme for candidates ranking or approving other candidates. Good luck with that one. It sounds like a formula for behind the scenes capture by the best financed and organized special interests which have the wherewithal to get their candidates to rank each other at the top or approve each other and none other, predominate in advertising and turnout operations, etc.
Special elections are fine. Just get rid of communist nonsense like rcv, approval voting, fusion, mail voting, absentee voting, women voting, 18-20 voting, DC voting, nonWhite voting, post 1965 immigrants voting, etc.
3 DIST GERRYMANDER ROT
DIST AA ZZ TOT
1 2 1 3 CRACKED
2 2 1 3 CRACKED
3 0 3 3 PACKED
TOT 4 5 9
GERRYMANDER GANG AA CONTROLS 2-1
LARGER GERRYMANDERS —
1/2 OR LESS VOTES X 1/2 RIGGED CRACKED/PACKED GERRYMANDER DISTRICTS = 1/4 OR LESS CONTROL
SUPER-WORSE PRIMARY EXTREMIST MATH
MONARCH TYRANT GANG BOSSES
—–
SAVE DEMOCRACY VIA P.R.
TOTAL VOTES / TOTAL MEMBERS = EQUAL VOTES TO ELECT
Bro, I no no what you talking about, es no gang bosses here man, SA and AA and blancos all bienvenidos, and we smoke herb aqui, no crack, so take that mierda and bad vibes some other place, cabron!
Alaska should eliminate primaries. If no candidate has majority, hold a runoff with candidates over 90%. Eliminate one candidate if necessary. Repeat as often as necessary. Write-ins would be allowed.
In the previous election, Al Gross could have encouraged his supporters to vote for another candidate.
Sounds complicated. What’s wrong with jungle primary,winner if over 50%, runoff between the top two if no winner over 50%+?
@Leroy,
If the top two receive for example 18% and 16%, they really haven’t demonstrated any sort of consensus among among the electorate.
How many election days do you think would be too many? 20? 40?
@Leroy,
That would be up to the voters. If they believed their favorite candidate would never win, they might switch.
What if there were hundreds of candidates? You could potentially have election days until the next election.
If you go in that direction, wouldn’t instant runoff be better? I’m not saying it’s better overall, but it seems better than unlimited separate election rounds.
@Leroy,
If there were 355 candidates, most would receive less than 1/10 of 1% and be eliminated in the first round. Most would only take it might only take 10 or 15 candidates to comprise 90%.
If you’re only eliminating one candidate at a time what’s the maximum possible number of rounds?
@Leroy,
It is unlikely that you would only eliminate one candidate.
In the 2022 gubernatorial election in California there were 28 candidates, but Gavin Newsom received a majority. But if we ignore that, the Top 8 would have had 90% of the vote. It is likely that the support in the 2nd round would coalesce on the leading candidates.
In 52 congressional races, 36 had a first round majority, reducing 178 candidates to 36 winners.
In the other 16 races, 94 candidates would be reduced to 60. There would be more focus in a second round.
Maybe you misspoke in one of your earlier posts above? Either way, likely or not, I’m still curious what the maximal numbers of rounds could be in theory , and why you’re not instaing them.
I would definitely agree with the court’s decision that Al Gross’ name should not have been withdrawn. Limiting the number of choices on the ballot inevitably punishes the people of Alaska as fewer people would have confidence that their voices are being heard. I don’t agree with their top-four primary system, but I’m hoping that alternatives to the hopelessly corrupt winner-take-all system will pass to ensure that more voices are being heard.
Leroy asks a good question. I’m wondering the same thing.