It's Not Cheating for Republicans To Lose: Ranked-Choice Voting Edition

I know it's not worth it to engage in Republican histrionics about how ranked choice voting is anti-majoritarian after Democrats won an Alaska House seat last week. The actual objection, as Republicans have made manifestly clear in their behavior over the past few years, is to "Democrats winning elections", and there's nothing deeper than that going on under the surface.

But the arguments they're making about how ranked choice systems are anti-democratic because "60% of the voters in Alaska voted for the Republican agenda" are so transparently ridiculous, and are being repeated with such vigor, that they need to be addressed.

Of course, it is a misnomer off the bat to say that a majority of Alaskans voted for "the Republican agenda". Voters don't vote for "agendas", they vote for candidates. And leave aside the notion that Republicans suddenly care about majoritarianism in a electoral system riddled with anti-democratic elements ranging from gerrymandering to the Senate to the Electoral College.

Nonetheless, it is the case that something feels off when more voters choose candidates from party X but, because they're divided, a single candidate from party Y prevails with a plurality. This can afflict Democrats as well as Republicans (witness worries about Democratic "lock outs" in California's top-two primary system). And it's worth noting that this circumstance is actually very common in a multi-candidate field with first-past-the-post rules. Indeed, Mary Peltola won a plurality of first-choice votes -- she would have won the election without a ranked-choice run-off! (Peltola had 41% of the initial vote, with Palin receiving 31% and Begich 28%).

But here's the thing: when we see voting patterns where 40% of the electorate backs a Democrat, 35% back Republican A, and 25% back Republican B, the reason we think it's unfair that the Democrat wins is that we assume if we asked the supporters of Republican B "if you had to choose, would you back Democrat or Republican A", they'd pick the latter. It's a reasonable enough assumption in a party system, to be sure, and in many occasions I suspect it's an assumption that'd be borne out. But all ranked choice voting does is actually ask the question rather than assume its answer. And it turns out that in Alaska, enough supporters of "Republican B" (Begich) did not prefer Republican A (Palin) over Democrat (Peltola). So the Democrat won, for the simple democratic reason that most Alaska voters preferred her over the most popular Republican competitor. That's not cheating, that's an election!

Put simply, if a majority of Alaska voters' preference was to elect a Republican -- any Republican -- over a Democrat, the voting system in Alaska gave them ample opportunity to make that choice. They chose otherwise, because it turns out that their preferences weren't that simple. And ultimately, that's what's driving Republican rage here: they think the voters' preferences were wrong, and so it is cheating for their will to have prevailed. Hard to think of a pithier summary of contemporary GOP attitudes towards democracy.

Softcore Holocaust Denial is the Best Form of Allyship, Say Republicans

The eminent Holocaust historian Deborah Lipstadt introduced a very useful term into our lexicon when she spoke about "softcore Holocaust denial". Regular, or hardcore, Holocaust denial, is exactly what it sounds like: it claims the Holocaust didn't happen, period. Softcore Holocaust denial, by contrast, concedes that something bad happened, but seeks to minimize it. The most typical form of softcore denial is by spurious analogies -- whenever some minor public inconvenience (or even significant injustice that nonetheless falls far short of systematic genocide) is asserted to be "just like the Gestapo" or "the new Nazism", that's softcore Holocaust denial. 

Softcore Holocaust denial a form of denial because it contests and undermines the actual gravity of what happened. It has to, because once actually engages unflinchingly with the Holocaust was it is impossible to compare it to being insulted on Twitter or having your speech canceled at a public university. These things may be wrong,* but they are not the Holocaust, and the only way to allege they are the Holocaust is to willfully deny what the Holocaust actually was. Of course, the whole purpose behind softcore denialism typically is to preserve and appropriate the emotive gravity of the Holocaust and transport it to a different political context which cannot, on its own two feet, generate such weighty affect. The end result is to sap the Holocaust of its moral force, since it is now reduced to, at "worst", the sort of ordinary trials and tribulations that are a regular part of many people's political experience. But since softcore denialists are usually non-Jews, this is a "cost" they are more than willing to accept.

All of this is a run up to events in Anchorage, Alaska, where we had another iteration of 2021's most popular form of softcore denialism: comparing mask mandates and vaccination policies to the Nuremberg laws. As always, Jewish groups are unhappy to see this utterly spurious and outrageous comparison. And also as always, Republican politicians are defending themselves by lecturing Jews that actually they're doing us a solid:

“We’ve referenced the Star of David quite a bit here tonight, but there was a formal message that came out within Jewish culture about that and the message was ‘Never again,’” [Anchorage Mayor Dave Bronson\ said. “That’s an ethos. And that’s what that star really means is, ‘We will not forget, this will never happen again, and I think us borrowing that from them is actually a credit to them.”

This is the face of modern antisemitism: gratuitously insulting Jews, then when called on it explaining that the insult actually is the product of the fondest of friendship. It's even worse than "I have Jewish friends" -- the antisemitic act is what supposedly establishes the friendship.

The only analogue I can think of on the left is folks who categorically deny that any form of anti-Israel discourse can be antisemitic and then respond to criticism by declaring that "what's really antisemitic is falsely conflating Israel with the Jewish people," like their denialism is doing us a great favor. The antisemitism is the allyship. It's grotesque. But one sees it more and more often, and it is positively epidemic among conservatives who simply refuse to listen to Jewish voices telling them just how offensive it is to compare COVID restrictions to Nazism.

* Of course, a huge swath of what is regularly compared to the Holocaust are not even wrongs of lesser gravity, but not wrongs at all -- COVID restrictions being a prime example.

Should the University of Alaska Go On "Strike"

The University of Alaska system is facing a massive crisis as Republican Governor Mike Dunleavy just vetoed $130 million dollars in state funding (this was part of a much broader ax Dunleavy took to the state budget as he seeks to divert money away from public services and towards the cash payout Alaskans receive from the state each year). Along with a $5 million cut the university had already absorbed, this amounts to a cut of over 40% of its state funding.

You can read the letter the university President sent out here; it paints a pretty grim picture. It's well beyond a hiring freeze or furloughs -- the president is indicating the university might have to declare a state of financial exigency, discontinuing entire programs and laying off tenured faculty members. It's the type of body blow a university might never recover from.

Given the increased hostility the GOP has directed towards the entire idea of higher education, one suspects that might be the point. But I'm wondering whether it might be worthwhile to call the bluff. Instead of furloughs or firings or program terminations, the hot take play for the university leadership might be to vote to suspend operations outright. Announce the university is not a viable academic entity at the level of funding the Governor has deigned to allocate, and shut down the university until a more reasonable budget is restored.

In essence, it's a strike -- but a strike implemented and approved by the university leadership (so arguably more of a lock-out, but really the entire idea is pretty sui generis, as far as I know).

This is a spitball idea -- I'm not wedded to it, and I can imagine any number of details I don't know which might suggest it's a bad idea. Certainly, it'd be a deeply painful move that would ask for immense sacrifice from university students, staff, and faculty. But then, so would capitulating. It's a high-stakes gamble, but it might be worth the risk. If it wants to remain a viable institution of higher education, the University is more likely to survive a temporary cessation of operation than it is wholesale destruction of entire departments, programs, academic and career support services, and the tenure system. The latter would represent the obliteration of the university in all but name. But if Alaska politicians want to destroy the University of Alaska, they should be forced to face that consequence outright.

Her Approval Fills Me With Shame

Now I've seen everything. Former Alaska Governor Sarah Palin -- maybe you've heard of her -- has endorsed the fusion Independent/Democratic ticket in the Alaska governor race; snubbing incumbent Sean Parnell (Palin's former Lieutenant Governor). The source of the fight seems to be Parnell's decision to dismantle a Palin-era program that had resulted in more progressive taxation policies against oil and gas companies (yes, really). Palin fought hard to overturn Parnell's decision and restore the tax program (every sentence I write is more and more absurd to me), but ultimately fell short in a ballot referendum earlier this year.

So there you go -- Palin and I, united in Alaska politics. Who would have ever thought?

Sarah Palin Invented the Internet Change

Sarah Palin apparently has a beef with new Obama chief of staff Pete Rouse.

Palin appears to have been no fan of Rouse for a long time. In her 2009 memoir, she accuses him of being among those in the Obama presidential campaign who allegedly tried to smear her when she was named McCain's vice presidential nominee.

She also accuses him of lifting Obama's "change" slogan from her own gubernatorial campaign in 2006.

"Every part of our campaign shouted 'Change!'" she wrote. "We were amused a couple of years later when Barack Obama, one of whose senior advisers (come to think of it) had roots in Alaska– adopted the same theme," she wrote in reference to Rouse.

As Kevin Drum put it:

I don't know whether Rouse tried to smear Palin or not. Given Palin's expansive understanding of the word "smear," I wouldn't be surprised. But does she really think that she's the first politician to ever run on the theme of "change"? And that Obama via Rouse stole it from her? Holy cow.

It's unreal, the world that woman inhabits.

Have a Good Time Spelling That

Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-AK) will run as a write-in candidate for Senate after losing her primary bid to Joe Miller. How this will effect the race is unclear, although early indicators say that it will actually help Miller and hurt Democratic candidate Scott McAdams.

* * *

I do have news, but unfortunately, I can't publicly reveal it yet. This is not meant to be a tease -- I honestly wasn't expecting events to turn out quite the way they did, and while I think I'm in a very good state, things are delicate right now.

A Year of Fundamentals

I feel like this is going to be an interesting election year. On the one hand, all the fundamentals favor the GOP. The economy is down. The Presidential Party normally loses off-year elections. The Democratic Party won a ton of marginal seats in the 2006 and 2008 wave elections, and those seats would be difficult to hang onto under any circumstances. The terrain is very Republican-friendly.

Political scientists are generally rather sneering about the idea that the daily political play-by-play actually effects election results all that much. It's fundamental, macro issues (most notably the economy) which drive results.

Yet, this year, we might see a test of that hypothesis, given just how far to the right the Republican Party has decided to drift. It's not quite like the Republican Party decided to run a whole slate of Alvin Greenes, but it's close.

In state after state -- Kentucky, Nevada, Florida, and most recently Alaska -- GOP primary voters have spurned mainstream, electable candidates for folks on the furthest of the right-ward fringe. And it's turning states that should have been easy wins for the GOP into bona fide targets for the Democratic Party. Senator Harry Reid (D-NV) should be dead in the water, but for the fact that 66% of Sharron Angle's own supporters regret having nominated her. Joe Miller's apparent knock-off of incumbent Senator Lisa Murkowski (R-AK) has possibly put that Senate seat into play. In the Florida gubernatorial race, former prohibitive favorite Bill McCollum couldn't get past Rick Scott in the primary, and Democratic nominee Alex Sink has to be smiling given that McCollum apparently won't endorse Scott. A similar story prevails in the Florida Senate race, as Charlie Crist's independent bid after getting forced out of the GOP primary by Marco Rubio has thrown the entire race into flux (for the record, I'm a Charlie Crist fan, and have been since well before he dropped the GOP label). And so on and so forth.

So this is an interesting year. It really tests the question -- are fundamentals everything? Are there candidates so extreme that they can -- not just on a case-by-case basis, but systemwide -- check against the natural political gravity which is pulling hard against the Democrats this year?

It'll be interesting to find out. (Although I can't say I'm excited. Call me risk-averse, but I'd prefer a strong chance of mainstream Republicans winning than even a 50-50 chance of some of the nuts we're talking about getting their hands on the levers of power. Sharron Angle may have given Harry Reid a breath of life, but it also means we have a non-negligible prospect of Senator Sharron Angle. Scary.).

Palin Resigns

I give my full breakdown and a roundup at The Moderate Voice. Short story -- assuming this was meant as a step towards running in 2012 (and I think it was), it was a grave, grave miscalculation.

Clash of the Titans

Rep. Don Young (R-AK) has a better idea for former Sen. Ted Stevens than a futile effort to get Sen. Mark Begich (D-AK) to resign. He thinks Stevens should challenge Gov. Sarah Palin (R) and try and take the Governor's mansion.

Good Luck With That

Alaska GOP calls on Sen. Mark Begich (D-AK) to resign, allowing for a special election "allow[ing] Alaskans to have a real, non-biased, credible process where the most qualified person could win, without the manipulation of the Department of Justice."

Cry me a river.

Too Much Credit

I may have been too kind to Senator Ted Stevens (R-AK) the other day, when I jokingly interpreted a CNN headline as him claiming to have been "vindicated" by a federal jury convicting him of seven counts of corruption. But no, he's going there, claiming that he has "not been convicted yet", a point he reiterated in a debate with Democratic candidate Mark Begich: "I have not been convicted of anything."

It's like Alaska politicians don't even comprehend the meaning of investigation. First Gov. Palin, and now this? It's utterly bizarre.

Alaskan Dave Noon translates for the rest of us lowlanders.

Stevens Guilty On All Counts

The prosecution did its level best to botch the case, but nonetheless a jury has found Alaska Senator Ted Stevens guilty on all seven counts of his federal corruption trial.

Sen. Stevens indicated that he will seek a new trial. My guess is that the amount of screw-ups in the prosecution's handling of the case will, at the very least, keep them tied up in appeals for years. Even still, this is hardly good news for his re-election chances.

Backyard Brawl

The Anchorage Daily News endorses Obama -- a development that is utterly meaningless but for the deliciousness of it all.

Things Older Than John McCain: VP Edition

Not only is McCain (obviously) older than his VP, he's older than her state.

By 23 years.

It's Tougher in Alaska

Listening to Alaskans fret about how their state will survive without Senator Ted Stevens' (R-AK) largess is ridiculously amusing to me. If your state can't survive without corruption-tainted pork, you have issues.

Stevens Indicted

Ted Stevens (R-AK), the senior Republican in the US Senate, has been indicted for making false statements on his Senate Financial Disclosure forms related to gifts received from the VECO corporation (resulting in the steering of millions in federal contracts to the company).

As The Plank notes, this could actually be good for GOP Senate prospects in Alaska, as Stevens was trailing Anchorage Mayor Mark Begich (D) in early polling, and anything that might assist in knocking him off the ballot in favor of another candidate makes it easier to hold the seat. On the other hand, putting Republican corruption back in the spotlight hardly is the gift conservatives were looking for, either in Alaska or on the national stage.

Corrupt CREW

Citizens for Ethics and Responsibility in Washington has got its latest list of corrupt pols up. Republicans continue to maintain their strong advantage, up 18-4 (and sweeping the Senate category!). Via LGM's "D", whose depressed to see his entire Congressional Delegation (House and Senate) made the list. Way to go, Alaska!

Members of the Senate:
Sen. Pete V. Domenici (R-NM)
Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-KY)
Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-AK)
Sen. Ted Stevens (R-AK)

Members of House:
Rep. Ken Calvert (R-CA)
Rep. John T. Doolittle (R-CA)
Rep. Tom Feeney (R-FL)
Rep. Doc Hastings (R-WA)
Rep. Duncan Hunter (R-CA)
Rep. William J. Jefferson (D-LA)
Rep. Jerry Lewis (R-CA)
Rep. Gary G. Miller (R-CA)
Rep. Alan B. Mollohan (D-WV)
Rep. Timothy F. Murphy (R-PA)
Rep. John P. Murtha (D-PA)
Rep. Steve Pearce (R-NM)
Rep. Rick Renzi (R-AZ)
Rep. Harold Rogers (R-KY)
Rep. David Scott (D-GA)
Rep. Don Young (R-AK)
Rep. Jerry Weller (R-IL)
Rep. Heather A. Wilson (R-NM)

Of these, I've seen sharks (legal or political) circling around Sens. Stevens, McConnell, and Domenici, and Reps. Calvert, Doolittle, Hunter (though he's still happily running for President), Jefferson, Lewis, Mollohan, Murtha, Renzi, and Young.

Ted Stevens Has Gonads The Size of Bowling Balls

I know that if the FBI and IRS raided my house, I wouldn't threaten to put a hold on the Ethics Reform bill that just passed the House. Or perhaps I would, depending on your point of view. But, still, it takes huevos grandes, and just like the word "internet," Ted Stevens doesn't know the meaning of Chutzpah.

Culture of Corruption, what?

****

Going political for a moment, what does this say about Stevens' Senate seat? Ted Stevens is the kingpin of Alaska's political establishment, and I have to think that if he runs, nothing short of an illegal immigrant under-age gay prostitute ring scandal will bring him down. But he may not run (he may be in prison). In which case, can Democrats poach his seat? Maybe, but don't get too excited. In 2006, a Democratic wave year, we couldn't win the Alaska governorship despite a) it being an open seat where b) the incumbent was removed because he lost his own primary (in other words, the GOP was weak in Alaska specifically) and c) we had our ideal candidate (former Governor Tony Knowles). I have to think that if we can't win in a perfect storm like that, we can't win at all. But this set of circumstances might be even more GOP-unfriendly. 2008 still looks to be an overall strong year for Dems. The corruption scandal that is tearing through the Alaskan political establishment is taking down top GOP figures left and right, and if Stevens' goes down, the Alaska GOP could reach Ohio-levels of dysfunction. All that would be needed is a strong candidate. Anyone know what our bench looks like in the Arctic?