If they’re expecting 60k mail in ballots and for those to favor Peltola, the end result probably won’t even need second choices. The current near-tie is on around 210k votes, so 60k more is a huge chunk. Peltola only needs like a 32k/28k split to get an outright majority.
Yeah probably not. Not 27 women who were raped by the president: https://lemmy.dbzer0.com/post/49344563
Watch the ranked choice ballots drop the Republican to 3rd place behind one of the other independents
Iirc, technically there are two Republicans on that ballot so… no. Lol
There are four candidates on the ballot, so Republicans in third and fourth place was a theoretical possibility before any votes were counted.
Now that most of the first-choice votes have been counted and reported, it is no longer possible. The Republican incumbent Sullivan is currently in second place, and it is not mathematically possible for him to place lower. He and the Democrat Peltola will take first and second.
Either could still get a majority of first-choice votes and win on the first round of counting. If nobody has a majority, the last-place candidate is eliminated and their second choice votes distributed to the remaining candidates. This is repeated until someone has a majority, or only two candidates remain.
Oh no how unfortunate.
What I think the Times analysis misses is that of the two minor candidates, Heikes ® has more votes (2.3%) than Sullivan (I) (1.7%).
Currently, the AP reports Sullivan ® at 47.9%. If he got all of Heikes’ votes, that’s 50.2% and he wins. If Peltola (D) gets all 1.7% from Sullivan (I) added to her 48.2%, that’s 49.9%, which does not end the process.
In Peltola’s favor is that mail voters tend to lean Democratic and that’s most of the uncounted votes. Favoring Sullivan ® is that he’s more likely to be the second choice of someone voting for one of the losers.
What I think the Times analysis misses is that of the two minor candidates, Heikes ® has more votes (2.3%) than Sullivan (I) (1.7%).
Dude, I’m sorry, did you not even read it before saying this?
They go over this in detail. They literally show what the ranks of the current ballots are and explain that the outstanding ballots heavily favor Peltola (and why).
“What I think the Times’ analysis misses is that one number bigger than other number.” Like are you fucking kidding me? You think they missed that? Is this a joke?
I’ll answer my own question: no, you did not read this, and you’re full of shit saying you “think it misses it”. Either read an article you’re commenting on before making sweeping assumptions about it or, alternatively, go read up on the Dunning–Kruger effect. Either would’ve obviated your comment and saved me the time of spoon-feeding this basic information to you to make sure you don’t misinform anyone else.
did you not even read it
The article is paywalled so it’s possible they didn’t read it. Here’s an archive link if you want to throw this in the description so people can read the article.
I did read it, and if what they’re saying based on the 200k sample size is true, that’s hilarious:
In a surprising twist, one reason Mr. Sullivan doesn’t fare better is that more of the voters who backed the other Dan Sullivan — a candidate named Daniel J. Sullivan Jr., who was recruited by allies of Ms. Peltola to siphon votes from the incumbent — ranked Ms. Peltola as their second choice rather than Mr. Sullivan.
I just hope the margin is big enough that there’s no dispute about people really not waiting Trump’s Dan Sullivan
