Think about the "ONE" thing that President Biden could do that would help the Democratic Party in November. And it would super suck for most Alaskans, especially hunters.

Think......Jimmy Carter.

IF Alaska dems have implemented "ranked choice voting" for the 2022 elections, SPREAD THE WORD that there is a way to offset this corrupt voting system.

Ranked choice voting was put in place here in Maine by a dem governor. It stinks and it resulted in ousting a good republican Congressman in our 2nd district ( northern ME)- Bruce Poliquin- a VERY good man. He had the most votes of the 4 candidates, but did not have 50+% of the vote, so "ranked choice voting" was used. He wound up losing, and we have a crappy dem congressman (a snake).

The way you fight it this, is how you vote. In ranked choice voting you pick your first choice with your first selection, then you mark who you want for 2nd, 3rd, 4th and so on. Here's how you fight it: MAKE YOUR #1 SELECTION THE SAME FROM FIRST TO LAST CANDIDATE.

If you give the candidate your don't want ( ie "the challenger") the LAST ranked vote, to "punish" him/her, you are still giving him/her a vote that can be used in ranked choice voting. Don't do that. "STRAIGHT LINE VOTE" for the candidate you want from FIRST to LAST.

Ranked choice voting is a solution to a problem that does not exist. It is a democrat tool of voting corruption. It has hurt Maine. "Straight line vote" for your candidate, and spread the word.


PS. a Biden joke.

First guy: "What's the high temperature going to be today?"

Second guy: "It's supposed to reach 80 degrees, but with Biden's 10% inflation, it will be 88."

WTF? Why would that even exist? Unless you want to screw voters.

You just answered your own question



from: https://www.rankedvote.co. This is what happened to us in Maine with ranked choice voting.

pros and cons of ranked choice voting

"The person with the most votes can lose
This critique relies on a person’s lifelong familiarity with plurality-based voting (most votes wins) to imply that ranked-choice voting can lead to “unfair” outcomes. l.”
. (my comment: that's exactly what was intended, and what happened!)

A data point cited as proof is the 2018 Maine 2nd Congressional Election.

This critique takes one of the main advantages ( my comment: advantage for what party??). of ranked-choice voting and casts it as a negative.

The Maine election had Bruce Poliquin leading in the first round with a plurality of votes (45.6%) amongst four candidates. He was leading, true, but didn’t command a majority. ( my comment: which meNs, "He won, with the most votes."). So, ranked-choice eliminations took place. 8.1% of the total votes went to candidates that weren’t viable ( my comment,
: the votes WERE vian
ble, there just weren't enough to make that candidate the winner.) . When those candidates were eliminated and votes shifted to next ranked-choices, Poliquin ended up with 49.5% of the vote, short of the majority needed to win (Jared Golden won with 50.5%).

In this case, ranked-choice voting worked as intended ( my comment: the intention was to steal the election, and it indeed "worked as intended"). The electorate’s preference was better represented ( my comment, "better represented"??? it was FALSELY represented.. Dem candidate Golden got votes that voters cast for other candidates. WTF???). and a majority preference was found ( my comment : meaning "stolen"). It just so happened that the majority’s preference was initially split amongst the many candidates in the field. ( my comment: and that result was unaccetable to dems, and was changed).

Democracy’s legitimacy and strength derive from two key concepts: consent of the governed and majority rule ( my comment: this is redefining the premise. VERY bad thing.). Ranked-choice voting is an approach that makes it more likely that the majority’s voice is heard. ( My comment, the person with the most votes wins. If the voter thought the 2nd candidate was better, more people would've voted for him/her....they didn't). All "viable votes" were cast, and the candidate with the most votes is supposed to win; but, as Stalin said, it is not who gets the most votes. It is who COUNTS the votes.)

This is significant movement in the right direction! While not perfect (no voting system is), ranked-choice voting makes it more likely that an individual voter's preference is represented in the final count. "
----------------
My comment: Fight ranked choice voting with every bone in your body. Use "straight line voting", and spread the word.

Don’t straight line vote 1-4 for your favorite candidate in Alaska or your vote will NOT count. There are commercials and YouTube videos that explain how Rank Choice voting will work here. You also do not have to vote for more than one candidate either.

Good point. We can straight line vote in Maine. Definitely check. your state's rules. Maybe the best thing is to just vote for one candidate, BUT. that can allow fraud if your ballot is separated, and someone marks in other candidates for #2 or #3.

I am nkt paranoid. At the last census, the census taker came to our home. I g ave the minimum amount of info required by law ( name, address, number of people in the house.!. That was all. The census taker said, "That's ok, I will fill in the rest on my own.". Exsqueeze me?

I called tlwn office about this, and they forwarded me to the census field manager. I told him what happened. The field manager called me the next d ay and told me he met with the census taker, and her confirmed my report. The field manager told me the census taker was fired.taker

Each year, I have less trust in our government. Ranked choice voting is right up there. The best way to protect voting for just one canfidaye, and that candidate along is to have a co!umn that would allow you to vote wirh a selection of " null" or "" no vote" for other candidates. This would prevent potential fraud oc "after vote" mark up.

Ranked choice voting just plain stinks. Do all you can to have the Governor and state reps/Senators change it.

AK Ranked Choice Voting In A Nutshell

Self inflicted gunshot to the head.

Just for clarification, the original post/question and the second post which was intended as a "clue" to grasping the original post has to do with my endless fear of all of Alaska's Federal Lands becoming National Parks by executive orders.

Resulting in no place to hunt in Alaska, with the "side benefit" reduced reasons for needing to own firearms. Both of which would likely make many democrats happy.

Yep- and it was done illegally, and with a lie to try to insure Murkowski (RINO) stays in office. Her former campaign manager (IIRC) led the charge. By law, ballot initiatives cannot contain more than one subject. This one did:

1. Ranked voting
2. Make sources of "dark money" campaign donations public. (It didn't)

Then it was heavily publicized on the dark money issue, ignoring the more onerous threat. Uninformed (nice word for ignorant) voters bit.

And there we have it - screwed, blowed and tatooded. A crooked judge ruled it legal. (I say crooked, but what else could he be in the obvious face of illegality?)

Welcome to the dark side.

Thats why no matter how much you dislike Nick Begich or Sarah Palin you need to vote them 1-2 whatever your preference is. The Democrats are hoping more like praying that we only vote for one candidate.

Yep, but until we get a legislature that's united this law will stand. I talked to a couple legislatures they know this law is screwed up. But with the Democrats holding the majority because of some turn coat republicans this won't get change anytime soon.

Added#3. State supremes said “naw, it’s all good man”.

Would this approach work both ways to give moderates of both parties more of a chance so we don'tget extremists like aoc schumer shiff durbin pelosi etc?

With just three in the race things change a lot. No one gets 50% on the first go, and either Begich or Peltola are kicked to the curb. If it is Peltola, Begich wins. If it is Begich Sarah wins. You read it here first.

Petola will garner the Native vote. Basically 20% of the total. The non-Native Libs will vote Petola. That's half of the rest of the voters. Begich and Palin split the conservative vote and lose.

Petola is it.

No. It is orchestrated to insure Liberal win.

Nope Peltola has to pull 50% plus one vote to win outright... that ain't happening. I doubt Sarah comes in third so either Peltola or Begich get kicked to the curb. If Peltola gets kicked out I suspect Begich will get far more of her votes than Sarah. If Begich gets kicked out Sarah will get most of his votes. With four in the race it may have gone differently by a lot.

I hope you are right. But does she have to win outright? What if there is a 2 person runoff?.

I'm admittedly a bit confused about how this ass signed voting works... after we actually vote.

Dem voters voting
Peltola-Begich-Palin?

Dems think Begich is more liberal than sweet sister Sarah or just name recognition?

It’s all such bullshit and impossible to predict.