JONATHAN CHAIT NOVEMBER 1, 2010
-
Read Later
READ LATERAvailable only to subscribers. SUBSCRIBE TODAY
-
Listen
ARTICLE AUDIO
- Font Size
Over the weekend, leading Republicans have expressed concern over Tea Party favorite Joe Miller's collapse in Alaska, even going so far as to express tacit support for Lisa Murkowski's write-in campaign to stave off a win by Democrat Scott McAdamas. But now in the latest poll, Miller is ahead, 37-30-30.
What's crazy is that this is happening despite Miller's utter rejection by the electorate, and despite McAdams being the most popular candidate of the three by far:
Miller is winning despite having the worst personal favorability numbers of the three candidates. Only 36% have a positive opinion of him while 59% view him in a negative light. McAdams is by far the most popular with 50% rating him favorably to only 30% with an unfavorable one. Voters aren't very enamored with Murkowski either, giving her a 37/53 approval rating.
How can McAdams be so much more popular than Miller yet still be trailing the race? It's because 92% of the small group of voters that does like Miller is planning to vote for him. But only 56% of the voters with a positive opinion of McAdams are intending to cast their ballots for him, while 31% of them are going for Lisa Murkowski.
There are so many dynamics in play that it's impossible to guess who will win. Alaska can be difficult to poll because it's not part of the United States (Just look at a map: boxes in the corner don't count.) Layered on top of that is the added difficulty of polling a write-in candidate. And on top of that is the further difficulty of guessing how many voters who do write in Murkowski will have their ballots accepted. And on top of that is the three-dimensional chess of a multi-candidate race, where voters have to game out which of their top two choices has the best chance to win. Moderate Republicans have to tactically choose between Miller and Murkowski. (Stop McAdams!) Moderate Democrats have to tactically choose between McAdamas and Murkowski. (Stop Miller!) Any last minute polls or news could send one or both of those groups stampeding in one direction or another.
At this point, three outcomes appear about equally possible, and they're all pretty crazy: Either the one candidate in the race who voters despise, Miller, wins, or else a mildly unpopular candidate who's off the ballot wins, or else a heavily Republican state in a heavily Republican year elects a largely unknown Democrat. Crazy!
Meanwhile, the race is another good example of the superiority of instant-runoff voting, which is good at preventing outcomes like the election of a candidate despised by a strong majority of the electorate.
6 comments
Instant run-off voting would do a lot to help out our political system. Two parties just don't cut it anymore. For example, here in New York, I would love to vote for the Green Party candidate Connie Hawkins, in part based on his support for congestion pricing, which would streamline funds for mass-transit that the majority of New Yorkers use. However, he stands no chance of winning, at all. So I have to vote for Cuomo, who is fine and everything, but not the CANDIDATE I WANT! If I could rank Hawkins first, then Cuomo 2nd, etc. then I don't have to fear a disastrous victory by Paladino. I'm a Minnesota expat as well, and Pawlenty was elected there twice with less than 50% of the vote, meaning that the majority of Minnesotans leaned left, but we got stuck with his property-tax hiking no state-taxing budget schemes. This election cycle for governor of Minnesota, though it has Dayton leading in polls, is plagued by the same phenomena where the governing philosophy of the three candidates least desired stands a chance of winning because of three candidates being there. If I could put Hroner first, then Dayton 2nd, with Pawlenty protege Emmer 3rd, that would better reflect my thinking (I actually wouldn't even rank Emmer) and I'm sure it would better capture the thinking of Minnesotans. This would also, perhaps, be the great moderate equalizer, since blue-dog Dems are about to get trounced and moderate Republicans are nearly nonexistent. These guys would be more viable if they had their own party, or at least run on their own merits and not have to fear primary activists that bounce them purely on ideological grounds, and not on governing. IRV has to be in the conversation more than it is.
- RedState
November 1, 2010 at 9:38am
I like this "Alaska is not part of the United States" meme you're pushing.
- subterran
November 1, 2010 at 11:19am
IRV would help voters like RedState in that even with everyone who wants to take advantage of the right to vote for the Green candidate doing so, the Green candidate still would not outpoll Cuomo or Palladino, thus would not affect the Cuomo-Palladino race. However, with the race in Alaska, IRV would perpetuate the situation we have now. For instance, what would a voter do if he wants McAdams but prefers Murkowski over Miller and sees that Murkowski is in danger of being eliminated in the first round and doesn't like the matchup between McAdams and Miller. Similarly for anyone who is worried her 2nd choice candidate might be eliminated first and is worried that her 1st choice won't do well head-to-head against her 3rd choice. Bottom line: IRV helps truly minor candidates get more of their supporters to vote for them, but it does not create room for more than two truly major candidates. However, there is a voting method which would: pairwise-ranked voting (PRV). Voters cast their votes under PRV in the same way as they do under IRV, but the votes are counted differently. Instead of focusing on first-choice votes at each stage, PRV has each candidate run head-to-head against every other candidate. Thus a voter could cast a first-choice for McAdams AND have a preference for Murkowski over Miller be counted even if Murkowski gets fewer first-choice votes than both. Add to this that IRV is the only voting method in existence that does not pass the summability criterion in any order.
- sighthnd
November 1, 2010 at 12:03pm
Barry Goldwater wanted to saw off the Eastern Seaboard the better part of fifty years ago. I think you would be satisfied with sawing off Alaska, Jonathan. Well, maybe everything below the Mason-Dixon Line, too. Strip Alaska of its mineral and timber and oil rights and hand it back to Vladimir Putin.
- liberal reformer
November 1, 2010 at 12:20pm
"Strip Alaska of its mineral and timber and oil rights and hand it back to Vladimir Putin." Necessary under Tea Party constitutional interpretation as I understand it. What specific provision gave the Federal Government the right to purchase Alaska.
- stanmvp48
November 1, 2010 at 1:09pm
The Supreme Court needs to come in and tell these people who they're voting for.
- Nusholtz
November 1, 2010 at 1:49pm