Opinion Polls: Delphi's Polling Place

Hosted by Showtalk

Opinion polls on all subjects. Opinions? Heck yes, we have opinions - but we're *always* nice about it, even when ours are diametrically opposed to yours. Register your vote today!

  • 4792
    MEMBERS
  • 114157
    MESSAGES
  • 2
    POSTS TODAY

Discussions

WALTER784
Staff

From: WALTER784

Sep-6

This article is from Mar 2022, but it and the following 3 articles all talk about one and the same thing... "Ranked-Choice Voting"!!! And it's a big problem for many states. One state had 60% republican votes but yet a Democrat won. Only explanation is... it was rigged!!!

“I Think It’s Ridiculous We’re Not Moving to a 7-1 Map” – MO Secretary of State Jay Ashcroft Discusses Redistricting and Ranked-Choice Voting Movement in MO and Drops Names (AUDIO)

By Jim Hoft
Published March 16, 2022 at 4:52pm

e Gateway Pundit spoke with Missouri Secretary of State John (Jay) Ashcroft on Wednesday morning. We asked Secretary of State Ashcroft about the redistricting updates in Missouri, the local players behind the “ranked-choice voting” movement, and the Electronic Registration Information Center (ERIC) system now used in Missouri.
 
Ranked-choice voting is a scheme being pushed by radical leftists like AOC in red states across the nation and is a threat to free and fair elections in Missouri. It will eliminate the ability of Republican voters to primary unpopular candidates who do not follow our platform.  It will usher in corrupt elections wherein multiple rounds of vote juggling sometimes results in the person with fewer votes actually being declared the winner. It will throw state elections to Democrats. Secretary Ashcroft says ranked-choice voting is a First Amendment violation.  Jay Ashcroft told The Gateway Pundit, “I don’t know exactly who’s behind this. I think it’s some of the usual suspects. It’s clearly being done for partisan political gain. One thing I’d like to point out is when they went to ranked-choice voting… It took them weeks to know who won the election. I think the last thing we need in our country right now is more uncertainty about who wins and who loses an election. We need more transparency. We need more visibility. We need more accountability… There are several so-called Republican political operatives and consultants who are behind this. We see Andy Blunt, we see David Barklage, who was just recently convicted for a felony for tax evasion. And we see John Hancock who is supporting this. That’s terrible and I wonder why the Republican Party is continuing to hire people who are trying to destroy the party? And I would question anyone who is using those consultants, what are their motives?
 
The ERIC System: Secretary of State Ashcroft, “I am responsible for that.” Secretary Ashcroft added, “It’s not an inherently good system and it’s not an inherently bad system. It is a cost-effective way to do it… I’ve called on ERIC to go through an audit just like they do with credit card processors to make sure there is no real chance of data being leaked. Cuz I think there are real potential concerns for people that this is a lot of data, is it being used for partisan purposes? But with the right governance – it is a way for us to keep our voter rolls clean. It really has helped us to go after a handful of individuals who were voting in two states… What was real important is that you were shining light on that.”
 
The Gateway Pundit also pointed out the new Fractal Voter Registration System (FPEIS) that is an option to ERIC from Texas.
 
Missouri Redistricting: The moderates are trying to take us from a 6-2 map, six Republicans and two Democrats that we send to Congress, to what will end up being a 5-3 map where we would end up over the next 10 years sending an extra Democrat to Congress. I don’t think that represents the people of Missouri. I think Nancy Pelosi is on the wrong side of every public policy position when you look at what the run-of-the-mill Missourian believes in. I think it’s ridiculous that we are not moving to a 7-1 map. When you look what’s happening in New York, when you look what’s happening in Illinois, when you look what’s happening in Nevada, and New Mexico, the idea that the Republicans are going to a gunfight with a paper-throwing star, it’s ridiculous.
 
Let’s hope that works out for Missouri! Republicans need to step up.
 
The entire interview is on Rumble in the link below.
 
We’d like to thank Secretary of State Ashcroft for his time today.

"I Think It's Ridiculous We're Not Moving to a 7-1 Map" - MO Secretary of State Jay Ashcroft Discusses Redistricting and Ranked-Choice Voting Movement in MO and Drops Names (AUDIO) (thegatewaypundit.com)

FWIW

WALTER784
Staff

From: WALTER784

Sep-6

GOP Proves They Are On the Other Side: Doubles Down Commitment to Being the Controlled Opposition with Ranked Choice Voting

By Margaret Flavin
Published September 2, 2022 at 9:28am

The Gateway Pundit previously reported on the GOP’s commitment to being the controlled opposition. In 2020, Alaska enacted troubling new election rules including Rank Choice Voting (RCV), a scheme to manipulate our elections and is a threat to our free and fair elections.
 
A RCV is an electoral system in which voters rank candidates by preference on their ballots. If a candidate wins a majority of first-preference votes, he or she is declared the winner. If no candidate wins a majority of first-preference votes, the candidate with the fewest first-preference votes is eliminated. First-preference votes cast for the failed candidate are eliminated, lifting the second-preference choices indicated on those ballots. A new tally is conducted to determine whether any candidate has won a majority of the adjusted votes. The process is repeated until a candidate wins an outright majority.
 
In August, Project Veritas released a devastating undercover video of Senator Lisa Murkowski campaign staffers claiming the Alaska RINO secretly supported RCV in her state to ensure election victory.
 
On Wedensday, two weeks after the election, Democrat Mary Peltola defeated Sarah Palin in the Alaska Special election to replace Rep. Don Young in Congress. Pelota is the FIRST DEMOCRAT to win the House seat in solid red Alaska in 50 Years.
 
In Missouri, dark money was behind efforts to enact RCV in the state which, thankfully, failed in August.
 
This is how RINOs and Democrats will steal elections in Red states.
 
The Heritage Foundation provides a trouble report regarding the impact of Ranked Choice.
 
Here is how it works. In 2008, instead of choosing to cast your ballot for John McCain, Barack Obama, Ralph Nader, Bob Barr, or Cynthia McKinney, all of whom were running for president, you would vote for all of them and rank your choice. In other words, you would list all five candidates on your ballot from one to five, with one being your first choice for president and five being your last choice.
 
If none of the candidates were chosen as the number one pick by a majority of voters in Round One, then the presidential candidate with the lowest number of votes would be eliminated from the ballot. People who selected that candidate as their top pick—let us say it was McKinney—would automatically have their votes changed to their second choice. Then the scores would be recalculated, over and over again, until one of the candidates finally won a majority as the second, third, or even fourth choice of voters.
 
In the end, a voter’s ballot might wind up being cast for the candidate he ranked far below his first choice—a candidate to whom he may have strong political objections and for whom he would not vote in a traditional voting system.
 
Key Takeaways
 
Ranked choice voting is a scheme to disconnect elections from issues and allow candidates with marginal support from voters to win.
 
It obscures true debates and issue-driven dialogs among candidates and eliminates genuine binary choices between two top-tier candidates.
 
It also disenfranchises voters, because ballots that do not include the two ultimate finalists are cast aside to manufacture a faux majority for the winner.
 
Conservative voters need to wake up. The Republican Party has failed to represent conservative and populist voters.
 
The Republican Party has failed.

GOP Proves They Are On the Other Side: Doubles Down Commitment to Being the Controlled Opposition with Ranked Choice Voting (thegatewaypundit.com)

FWIW

WALTER784
Staff

From: WALTER784

Sep-6

Baked Alaskan: 60% of voters cast ballots for Republicans. A Democrat won.

ED MORRISSEY
Sep 01, 2022 8:25 AM ET

What happens when you combine an all-in or “jungle” primary with ranked-choice voting in the general election? Putting the two modern “innovations” on elections together in Alaska produced this absurd result, in which Republicans lost a House seat despite getting 60% of the vote.
 
And get ready for it to happen all over again in two months:
 
Democrat Mary Peltola, a former state representative, will be the first Alaska Native in Congress after she won a special election that included GOP candidates Nick Begich and former Gov. Sarah Palin, NBC News projects.
 
Peltola, who is the executive director of the Kuskokwim River Inter-Tribal Fish Commission, served 10 years in the state Legislature and campaigned as “Alaska’s best shot at keeping an extremist from winning.”
 
“It is a GOOD DAY,” Peltola tweeted following the election results. “We’ve won tonight, but we’re still going to have to hold this seat in November.”
 
Given that the candidates will be the same, Peltola has a good chance of succeeding at it. This was a perfect storm of absurdity that produced an unrepresentative if still legally legitimate result. The problem here isn’t cheating — the result is legitimate. It’s the jury-rigged Alaska election system that’s absurd.
 
First off, Alaska has chosen to use all-in primaries instead of party primaries. Other states have adopted these as well, notably California, but they use those to narrow down the general election to a run-off between the top two vote-getters. Alaska puts the top four finishers on its general-election ballot, but requires a majority to win. Rather than use a subsequent runoff between the top two of the general election, Alaska requires voters to fill out second and third choices between the four candidates … and then goes through a ridiculous process to assign those ranked choices if one candidate doesn’t get 50% — which this system all but guarantees will happen. After several days of machinations, Alaska finally announces who won.
 
And in this case, the party that got 60% of the vote lost to the party that got 40% of the vote. Huh?
 
In the first round of voting, the results were 40.2 percent for Peltola, 31.3 percent for Palin, and 28.5 percent for Republican Nick Begich. Although 60 percent of Alaska voters cast ballots for GOP candidates as their first choice, under Alaska’s new ranked-choice-voting method, Begich was eliminated after the first round of voting and Begich votes that indicated a preferred second choice were allocated among Peltola and Palin.
 
Part of this comes from animus between Palin and the GOP establishment. Twenty percent of Begich voters refused to put Palin as a second choice, and even more that voted for Peltola rather than vote for Palin:
 
Note well that this is a problem that got worse when combining all of these elements. Had the parties held their own primaries, we would have had either two or three candidates on the general-election ballot (Alaskans are pretty good at supporting write-ins, you’ll recall). Had Alaska set up its primary system to allow the top two finishers to the general-election ballot, there wouldn’t have been any need for ranked-choice voting in the first place. Had Alaska just used a first-past-the-post system, Peltola still would have won, but without wasting several days and using an opaque process to get to the end result.
 
Instead, Peltola won a House seat with 38.9% of the initial vote in a state that requires majorities to win. And that tends to underscore Palin’s consistent criticism of Alaska’s electoral “innovations”:
 
“The only people who benefit from Ranked Choice Voting are career politicians and the special interests that are in bed with them. The people of Alaska, on the other hand, are frustrated, confused, and discouraged. People are worried that their vote won’t count – or worse, that they’ll accidentally end up voting in a way that benefits a candidate they oppose. As I keep saying: we are being disenfranchised!”
 
Palin has called for Ballot Measure 2 — the 2020 question posed to voters that almost failed to pass and institute the ranked-choice system — to be repealed and for Alaska to return to “a straightforward, common-sense system that elects the candidate who earns the most votes.”
 
The former governor noted that “Alaska is the test-case this election s
...[Message truncated]
View Full Message
WALTER784
Staff

From: WALTER784

Sep-6

Sarah Palin Voiced Displeasure After Being ‘Cheated’ By Voting System

by Abdul
Aug 4, 2022

Sarah Palin, who ran for Alaska’s Ione House seat, has condemned the results of the special election, which was revealed on Thursday. The special election used ranked-choice voting to declare Mary Peltola, her democrat opponent, as the winner.
 
Palin condemned the election, saying the ranked-choice voting system was painted as though it would reflect the people’s will throughout the election. She added that the results from her election proved that the opposite is true.
 
She added, “The people of Alaska do not want the destructive democrat agenda to rule our land and our lives, but that’s what resulted from someone’s experiment with this new crazy, convoluted, confusing ranked-choice voting system.”
 
The ranked-choice voting system enables voters to rank candidates by preference on their ballot in rounds. Any candidate who gets over 50% in the first round can outright win the election. In situations where no candidate gets over 50% of the votes, the candidate who gets the lowest votes is cut off from the race. This candidate will then count votes for the other options, and that cycle continues till the final two candidates are left. Of these two, the candidate who gets the most votes in the last round wins the election.
 
For the first time in Alaska’s history, voters in the state went to the polls to vote through this rank choice system. Palin expressed her displeasure as she said the voting system only succeeded in disenfranchising 60% of the voters. This is because her opponent, Peltola, won the special election with only 40% of the votes in the first count.
 
However, NBC News reported Monday that Palin was defeated by Peltola following the election results. Peltola had 51.5% of the votes, while Palin got 58.5% of the votes counted in the ranked-choice results.
 
Alaska Division of Election supports ranked-choice voting as the website says it benefits the voters and lets them have a say on who gets elected.
 
The website reads, “By ranking multiple candidates, you can still have a voice in who gets elected even if your top choice does not win. Ranking multiple candidates ensures your vote will go toward your second, third, fourth, or fifth choice if your top choice is eliminated, giving you more voice in who wins.”
 
Sarah Erkmann Ward, a political consultant, also commented about the election results, saying it should be a wake-up call to republicans on how to vote using this system in the future.
 
She said, “Today’s reels should illustrate to Republicans very clearly that when they choose not to rank, there’s a good possibility that when their favorite candidate is eliminated, then their vote will no longer be in the mix. That appears to be what happened here.”
 
She added, “A certain segment of Republicans elected not to rank. That’s the consequence of not continuing on down your ballot.”
 
Palin has been defeated in the race to fill the deceased Don Young congregational seat for the main time. However, the November election will determine who will eventually get the set for the next two years, and Palin has said she would learn from this voting system mistake.
 
She said, “Though we’re disappointed in this outcome, Alaskans know I’m the last one who’ll ever retreat. Instead, I’m going to reload.”

Sarah Palin Voiced Displeasure After Being 'Cheated' By Voting System (trendingpolitics.com)

FWIW

 

WALTER784
Staff

From: WALTER784

Sep-6

The ‘Election Denier’ Smear Is The Dumbest Rhetorical Device In Modern Politics

BY: DAVID HARSANYI
AUGUST 22, 2022

Only conservatives are asked to treat every election law passed as a sacrosanct pillar of ‘democracy’ or risk being smeared as a traitor.
 
Tacking the word “denier” onto an issue — as in “climate denier” or “election denier”— is one of the dumbest rhetorical devices in modern politics. The purpose, of course, is to insinuate that the underlying position is insidious, beyond the pale, on par with Holocaust denial. One might debate a “conservative” on the issues, but a “denier;” well, that’s someone who can’t be reasoned with.
 
For starters, the logical and grammatical problem with the “denier” formulation is that nobody actually denies the existence of elections or climate. A “climate denier” is often a person who believes in economic tradeoffs and rejects eco-scaremongering. And an “election denier” is typically someone who believes that a political contest has been stolen, or corrupted, or unfairly implemented. This is the position of Donald Trump and Joe Biden, Doug Mastriano and Stacey Abrams, and Dinesh D’Souza and Jonathan Chait.
 
Certainly, not all “election denialism” is identical. There are those who maintain Donald Trump was a Russian asset since the 1980s and others who believe that the Electoral College is an antiquated institution. Both positions are wrong, but one is a critique of federalism while the other is bonkers. But the left likes to lump together nuts who believe child-porn rings are operating out of DC pizzerias and the millions who have concerns about the prevalence of low-integrity, mail-in ballot systems or executive actions that allow late, undated ballots to be counted after Election Day.
 
If these latter concerns make one a “denier,” then surely someone who believes that asking a citizen to show an ID before voting is tantamount to Jim Crow is also one. Because, if it’s not “dark money” stealing “democracy,” it’s confusing ballots, or “voter suppression,” or “gerrymandering,” or the Ruskies or the Supreme Court, or the Constitution. It has long been the case that Democrats do not accept the legitimacy of elections.
 
This weekend, Dem operative Jon Karl interviewed the recently deposed Liz Cheney, who promised to work against “election deniers,” people who do not “respect the outcome of the election.” Among the people Cheney will reject are Ron DeSantis and Ted Cruz—neither of whom, as far as I can tell, deny that Biden is the legitimate president of the United States. Apparently, that isn’t enough anymore.
 
“Who won the 2020 election?” CNN’s Jim Acosta asked Donald Trump’s acting Department of Homeland Security Secretary Chad Wolf this weekend.
 
“Obviously Joe Biden is president,” Wolf responded.
 
“No, no,” Acosta said. “Do you believe he won that election fair and square?”
 
“Joe Biden is president,” Wolf again said before bringing up the possibility of fraud.
 
Do Democrats believe Trump won 2016 squarely and fairly? Do they believe that Georgia or Texas run “fair and square” elections? Doubtful. Yet, it is only conservatives who are asked to treat every election law passed by Democrats as a sacrosanct pillar of “democracy” or risk being smeared as a traitor.
 
CNN’s preening Jake Tapper also loves to throw around the phrase “election denier,” which he defines as anyone “who lies about American democracy in the 2020 election.” Why doesn’t this go for the 2016 election or 2024 election or 2000? Well, because Tapper spent years spreading the Russia “collusion” fraud, a concerted effort to delegitimize “American democracy.” If we accept Tapper’s parameter’s for any other election year, not only does he meet the definition of a denialist, but virtually every Democrat qualifies.
 
It goes for Hillary Clinton, who repeatedly declared Trump an “illegitimate president,” and claimed that 2016 was “not on the level” and “stolen,” is by the definition Democrats embrace an “election denier.” As are Joe Biden, Kamala Harris, John Kerry, Al Gore, the late John Lewis, the late Harry Reid, Paul Krugman, Jerrold Nadler, virtually the entire Washington Post editorial page, Time magazine, every other major media outlet, the White House Press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre, former DNC chairs, and scores of others.
 
...[Message truncated]
View Full Message
WALTER784
Staff

From: WALTER784

Sep-6

Michiganders Blast Secretary Of State Who Claims Her Hands Are Clean In 2020 Election-Funding Scheme

BY: SHAWN FLEETWOOD
SEPTEMBER 02, 2022

Michigan voters are calling out Democrat Secretary of State Jocelyn Benson over her claims that she bears no responsibility for a private funding operation that affected election processes leading up to the 2020 general election.
 
As part of a lawsuit brought by the Thomas More Society on behalf of Michigan voters, the reply brief filed on Aug. 30 addressed Benson’s claims that she is not personally responsible for allowing millions of dollars worth of private grants to flood the state during the 2020 election cycle “because ‘she did not personally hand out the money’ and that the courts have no authority to review her failure to follow Michigan law because the election scheme occurred in the 2020 general election.”
 
“Secretary Benson is wrong,” said Thomas More Society Special Counsel Thor Hearne. “This lawsuit does not seek to relitigate the results of the 2020 general election. Rather, it is about how future Michigan elections are conducted and Secretary Benson’s responsibility to conduct elections according to Michigan’s Constitution and Election Code so that every Michigan voter has equal access to the ballot.”
 
Hearne also went on to debunk Benson’s claims that even if such a “private funding scheme is contrary to Michigan’s Constitution and Election Code, she is not responsible and, Michigan voters lack any judicial remedy to hold her accountable.”
 
Benson does not deny that “she is responsible for supervising Michigan elections and directing how Michigan — and other — election officials conduct the election,” Hearne said. “Nor does she deny that she was fully aware of and supported this private funding scheme. Secretary Benson is asking the court to overlook her responsibility and hold that, because she did not personally pay the money to election officials, she bears no responsibility.”
 
The lawsuit against Benson was originally filed by the Thomas More Society back in October 2020 in the Michigan Court of Claims over the state’s 2020 use of grants from the left-wing Center for Tech and Civic Life (CTCL), with the legal group alleging that the bid to utilize private grants in the conduction of an election “was intended to influence the election results and den[y] Michigan voters’ right of equal access to the ballot.”
 
The complaint also argues that “several Michigan election laws were violated when Secretary Benson allowed the use of illegal drop boxes, permitted illegal acquisition of ballot containers that facilitated ballot harvesting, and allowed election authorities to spend public funds for private purposes.”
 
Given upwards of $400 million by Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg, CTCL was instrumental in quietly altering state and local election processes in the lead-up to the 2020 election. In Michigan alone, the group distributed “135 grants above the $5,000 minimum,” resulting in $16.8 million “Zuckbucks” being poured into localities across the state.
 
“Out of these grants just 45 of the recipient localities were won by Trump, while 90 were won by Biden. Together these 90 municipalities received $14.6 million or 86 percent of all CTCL funds in Michigan,” a Capital Research Center report found. “Meanwhile, Trump won municipalities overwhelmingly received CTCL’s minimum $5,000 grant, though some received even less.”
 
As detailed by Federalist Editor-in-Chief Mollie Hemingway in her New York Times bestselling book, “Rigged: How the Media, Big Tech, and the Democrats Seized Our Elections,” Zuckerberg’s financing of “liberal groups running partisan get-out-the-vote operations” such as CTCL and the Center for Election Innovation and Research (CEIR) was ultimately “the means by which [Democrat] activists achieved their ‘revolution’ and changed the course of the 2020 election.”
 
“It was a genius plan,” wrote Hemingway. “And because no one ever imagined that a coordinated operation could pull off the privatization of the election system, laws were not built to combat it.”
 
Federalist Contributor William Doyle further expanded upon the effects of CTCL and CEIR’s election funding last year, writing that the groups’ efforts “had nothing to do with traditional campaign finance,” but everything to do “with financing the infiltration of election offices at the city and county level by left-wing activists, and using those offices as a platform to implement preferred administrative practices, voting methods, and data-sharing agreements, as well as to launch i
...[Message truncated]
View Full Message
WALTER784
Staff

From: WALTER784

Sep-6

Ranked-Choice Voting Failed To Make Ballot In Missouri — But Beware, The Left Will Keep Pushing It

BY: VICTORIA MARSHALL
AUGUST 26, 2022

In another move by the left to exert control over elections, several states are considering switching to ranked-choice voting. 
 
A multimillion-dollar effort to enact ranked-choice voting in Missouri has failed after Secretary of State John Ashcroft announced the initiative will not appear on the November ballot due to an insufficient number of valid signatures submitted. The measure would have appeared as a constitutional amendment to change Missouri’s election system. 
 
Millions in outside funding by Texas billionaire and former Enron executive John Arnold and his wife Laura went into getting ranked-choice voting on the ballot. Former Obama administration and Hillary Clinton 2016 campaign staffers also worked on the effort. Luckily, the initiative failed before it hit the ballot, so ranked-choice voting will not be coming to Missouri — yet.
 
But the concerted effort to get Missouri to switch to a ranked-choice system is not unique to the Ozark State, Democrat and center-left activists are also pouring millions of dollars into ranked-choice voting initiatives across the country. This is strategic.
 
“States that have gone to a ranked-choice voting system — much like states that have gone to a mail-in balloting system — trend blue,” Gina Swoboda, executive director at the Voter Reference Foundation, told The Federalist.
 
For anyone who needs a primer, ranked-choice voting is an electoral system whereby voters rank candidates by preference — first, second, third, and so on — on their ballots. If no one gets more than 50 percent of the first-choice vote, then the candidate with the fewest first-choice votes is disqualified, and their voters’ second choice picks up those votes. This process continues until one candidate scores 50 percent of the vote. 
 
Democrats — and establishment Republicans, for that matter — see ranked-choice voting as a way to exert more control over elections, using it as a “legal” mechanism to pass over candidates voters want in favor of predetermined, establishment-backed contenders. The push for ranked-choice voting then becomes just another ploy either to thwart the will of voters or turn states blue.
 
States Considering Ranked-Choice Voting
 
In Nevada, residents will be voting on whether to approve a constitutional amendment for a ranked-choice voting system in November. While $2.26 million has been poured into the RCV campaign, most of the funding has come from outside the state.
 
In Virginia, although ranked-choice voting exists in certain localities, multiple nonprofit advocacy groups have formed to establish ranked-choice voting for federal and state elections. One such group is the ostensibly “nonpartisan” FairVote Virginia, a local chapter of FairVote, which is a left-wing, George Soros-funded nonprofit that seeks to eliminate the Electoral College and expand ranked-choice voting across the U.S.
 
In Arizona, two nonprofit advocacy groups are seeking to put a ranked-choice voting initiative on the ballot in 2024. Voter Choice Arizona is focused on implementing ranked-choice voting in several cities while it campaigns for the 2024 ballot measure. Save Democracy — comprised of 19 Arizonans, including two RINO Republicans, former Arizona State Sens. Paul Boyer and Heather Carter — was created by Establishment GOP figures who believe the existing primary system elevates bad candidates, A.K.A., “election-deniers” who “don’t appeal to the majority of voters.” 
 
“They need to field better candidates, make better arguments, and appeal to the people, not change the rules in order to win,” Swoboda told The Federalist, arguing that Save Democracy Arizona is out of touch with GOP voters. 
 
Maine
 
While more than 50 jurisdictions across the United States already use or are planning to use ranked-choice voting in their next election, according to FairVote, only Maine and Alaska use it statewide. 
 
Maine was the first state to approve ranked-choice voting in 2016. The PAC that spearheaded the campaign received the majority of its $1 million in funding from two sources, the left-wing Action Now Initiative and the group Level the Playing Field. 
 
The first year Maine used ranked-choice voting in its congressional races was 2018, and in its 2nd District, Republican incumbent
...[Message truncated]
View Full Message
Showtalk
Host

From: Showtalk

Sep-6

Ranked choice voting gave California to the Democrats. There are races where the top two candidates are all Democrats, so Republicans essentially have no choice. That is different from Alaska where there are three top candidates, and two are Republicans and split the vote. That is how Palin lost to a Democrat.

Showtalk
Host

From: Showtalk

Sep-6

That is because the R vote was split between candidates where the D votes all went to one,

Showtalk
Host

From: Showtalk

Sep-6

The media is attacking Palin for telling the  truth!

TOP