Talk:2022 United States House of Representatives election in Alaska

Alaska Low‑importance

	Alaska portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Alaska, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of Alaska on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AlaskaWikipedia:WikiProject AlaskaTemplate:WikiProject AlaskaAlaska articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Elections and Referendums

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Elections and Referendums, an ongoing effort to improve the quality of, expand upon and create new articles relating to elections, electoral reform and other aspects of democratic decision-making. For more information, visit our project page.Elections and ReferendumsWikipedia:WikiProject Elections and ReferendumsTemplate:WikiProject Elections and ReferendumsElections and Referendums articles

U.S. Congress Low‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject U.S. Congress, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the United States Congress on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.U.S. CongressWikipedia:WikiProject U.S. CongressTemplate:WikiProject U.S. CongressU.S. Congress articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is about one (or many) event(s).

Special or regular?

We know Sarah Palin is running for the special election for this seat, the one being held a couple months earlier, but do we know for sure that she’s running for the regular election as well? SRD625 (talk) 11:23, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

Nick Begich III.png

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 00:52, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Peltola isn't the incumbent yet

Shouldn't Wikipedia wait until she's sworn in before noting her as such? —⁠71.105.198.28 (talk) 01:19, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

These people don't care. They've been doing exactly this for years all over the encyclopedia. It seriously stretches credibility to have things like WP:CRYSTAL and WP:NOTNEWS when people view it with a "wink wink nudge nudge" attitude by virtue of their editing activity. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 02:21, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm inclined to agree: she's not the incumbent until she is actually in office. I'll remove that, but if there is a consensus in favor of keeping it, it's not the biggest deal since it will be moot in a week or two. Jacoby531 (talk) 02:38, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The article lists the wrong candidate as advancing to the general. Yikes!

According to this article "All candidates ran in a nonpartisan blanket top-four primary on the same day as the special election on August 16, from which the top four candidates – Peltola, Sarah Palin, Nick Begich III, and Chris Bye – advanced to the general election in November."

But it appears this is INCORRECT. According to the Alaska Sec. of State's election results located here: https://www .elections.alaska.gov/results/22PRIM/ElectionSummaryReportRPT.pdf The vote percent for the top five cadidates is: TOP FOUR:

Peltola, Mary S. DEM 70,048 36.81%
Palin, Sarah REP 57,486 30.21%
Begich, Nick REP 49,833 26.18%
Sweeney, Tara M. REP 7,142 3.75%

ALSO RAN:

Bye, Chris LIB 1,182 0.62%

Chris Bye, who this article claims got the 4th slot for the ranked choice General Election slot was the only other candidate of the 23 in the Jungle Primary who got over 1,000 votes, but he was no where near the 7,142 that Libertarian candidate Sweeney got.

This is an egregious mistake, and I will be correcting it immediately.

If someone disagrees with this revision please post what official data you are basing your claim on. ZeroXero (talk) 21:39, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Tara Sweeney withdrew, and by law her spot in the final four went to the fifth-place finisher, Chris Bye. (see here: https://alaskapublic.org/2022/08/29/alaska-primary-count-is-done-as-near-record-voting-sets-fields-for-ranked-choice-election/) Bye will be on the ballot in November, but the way it was written in the article, implying that Bye finished fourth, is indeed a bit misleading. I changed it to indicate that Bye was only in the top four among remaining candidates. Jacoby531 (talk) 21:56, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I've expanded that a bit, here. — Mudwater^(Talk) 22:00, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Bbraxtonlee: Hello! About this change, your edit summary says, "it might be necessary to put that info in article, but if your putting it in parenthesis it belongs as a note". Why do you say that? Wikipedia articles use parenthetical information all over the place. And in this case I think the article is better with that text inline, and not in a note. It's pretty key info, and a lot of readers won't read or notice a note. Plus you also removed a pretty good footnote. So, I'd be in favor of putting that back. (As always other editors are encouraged to post their opinions too.) — Mudwater^(Talk) 22:44, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Mudwater: Hello! Thank you for using the talk page as I hate editing wars 🙄 About the note thingy, I agree it needs to be in the article. However, for the article to go to “the top four finishers are ….” and then go to list after (Bye was in fifth place) in the article is unethical. We usually use notes to explain something or describe more in-depth. So while we shouldn’t use the parenthesis after, I say we change the first sentence from “the top four finishers” to “the top four advancing to the general election.” Enjoy your day! Bbraxtonlee (talk) 22:49, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Bbraxtonlee: Okay, then how about this? I think it fits the bill, but I'd be open to further discussion. — Mudwater^(Talk) 23:59, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Mudwater:that is good in my opinion! The second updated sentence seems kinda wordy in my opinion so if you don’t mind I might go back in and reword it to have the same context. Thanks for bringing this up it’s way better than before! Bbraxtonlee (talk) 00:24, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Bbraxtonlee: Thank you. I agree that it's better than before. About that sentence being a bit wordy, I think it's important to be clear that it's the top four candidates (who didn't withdraw) who advance to the general election, hence that phrasing. Still, it might be possible to improve it further. "P.S." Here's a technical tip for you. If you sign your talk page post with one edit and ping an editor with a separate edit, like this, the notification doesn't work. The work-around is to re-do your signature with four tildes in the same edit that you do the ping. — Mudwater^(Talk) 00:38, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Mudwater Thanks. Would you say this is okay? I got rid of Chris Bye being the new fourth place finisher as it really isn't necessary for the general election. I also changed the rcv link to the rcv in us instead of the irv link because the infobox will have the irv link (example). The rcv explains the process more in the usa and how it is here, while the irv link explains how the votes are tabulated. Bbraxtonlee (talk) 00:58, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Bbraxtonlee: About the link for ranked-choice voting, it's not a huge deal, but I think it was better before. The Instant-runoff voting article is about ranked-choice voting itself. The Ranked-choice voting in the United States article is more about which U.S. jurisdictions use the system. About the revised wording, I think it's okay, except for one thing. Sweeney withdrew on August 23rd (per the cited ref), which was before and not after the results were certified on September 2nd (as seen here).

— Mudwater^(Talk) 01:18, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Mudwater Fixed! :) Yeah, I'll probably just change the link back to the irv one until we can get the infobox to link it like we did with the special. :) Bbraxtonlee (talk) 01:26, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Bbraxtonlee: About the link, thanks. About the wording, that seemed to suggest that the fifth-place finisher advances if one of the top four withdraws before the results are certified. Actually, they advance if one of the top four withdraws 64 or more days before the election, as mentioned in the footnote quote. So I made two more edits, here. — Mudwater^(Talk) 01:46, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Mudwater: Okay. I think the article is near perfect at this point. Thanks! Bbraxtonlee (talk) 02:04, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

FiveThirtyEight and other ratings' "As of"

Not sure if this is the best place to ask but I've been spending time editing House elections for another state whose Read board is pretty dead/non-participatory.

This election has FiveThirtyEight's rating "as of" update from about a week ago. FiveThirtyEight updates every day, however. Are you only updating when there is a change or is this just something people don't want to bother updating after every change?

I'm not aware, and couldn't find, any policy on Wiki for a standard here. It seems to me that the "As of" should be set to whenever the latest change of any race is. So for instance, if Cook Political Report keeps their rating for AK-AL the same from Jan. 1 to Jan. 2 but they make a new update for other races on Jan. 2, the assumption would be that they are keeping their rating the same, and so the As of would be Jan. 2, not Jan. 1, even if there was no change for the rating. Are you following that line of thinking or are you only updating the As of when the AK-AL race has been changed? Grenvilledodge (talk) 16:12, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

NickBegich3.png

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 21:22, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Candidates in infobox

The general election had four candidates on the ballot -- Peltola, Palin, Begich, and Bye. So those four should be listed in the infobox. The election used the ranked choice voting system, and it's clear that Bye will be eliminated for the second round, but that's no reason to remove him from the infobox, he's still one of the four who were on the ballot in November. So, I'm going to put him back. And the same logic should apply to other ranked choice elections in Alaska. Other editors are encouraged to give their opinions here. (Pinging Einahr and DukeOfDelTaco who removed Bye in earlier edits.) — Mudwater^(Talk) 12:23, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Mudwater we removed Sir Bye because we want to work on the 2022 Alaska's at-large congressional district special election with only three candidates: Peltola, Palin and Begich III. — Einahr (talk) 13:02, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The consensus with infoboxes for popular vote elections is to only include candidates who earned at least 5% of the vote. Because Bye only managed to earn 1.7% of the initial vote, he should not be included in the infobox for brevity's sake. Hopefully this clears things up! DukeOfDelTaco (talk) 21:55, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@DukeOfDelTaco: Thanks for the reply. I wasn't aware of that. Can you provide a link to a talk page where the consensus was arrived at, or a WikiProject page where it's documented? "P.S." Since for Alaska in particular the ranked choice general elections have four candidates, it might make more sense to include all four for Alaska elections. — Mudwater^(Talk) 22:23, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It's at WP:5% rule, although there might be more discussions held after this. —twotwofourtysix^{(talk || edits)} 05:24, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. That discussion links to an earlier Request For Comment also. Yes, that's helpful. But I would say that for the Alaska elections using the new ranked choice system, the infobox should generally include all four candidates who advance from the open primary to the general election. Unlike some other elections, where there might be many candidates, we know that there will be a maximum of four. — Mudwater^(Talk) 03:41, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Including all four candidates in the infobox

As previously mentioned, the general election included four candidates in the ballot, as a result of a provision that explicitly stated that there will be a maximum of four candidates on the ballot. Though Bye received less than 5% of the votes required for his inclusion in the infobox per the WP:5% rule, I believe that an exception can be made as Bye can be treated as a major candidate through his inclusion in the debates and his advancement via the primary. EdrianJustine (talk) 02:11, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As I said in the #Candidates in infobox section (above), I think it would be best to include in the infobox the four candidates who were on the ballot in the general election -- for this election, and for any election in Alaska conducted under the new system. First there's an open primary, then a maximum of four candidates advance to the general election. With elections in other states or areas, there could be a large number of minor candidates, and for those articles the WP:5% rule is a reasonable guideline. But we don't need that for Alaska, now and going forward, because the system limits the general election to four. So in my opinion Bye should be in the infobox here for that reason, regardless of whether he was included in the debates, etc. — Mudwater^(Talk) 12:22, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Total votes tallly

Just realised that the total number of votes in the first-round "summary report" is 263,610, but once we get to the RCV Report, which excludes write-in votes, the number suddenly jumps to 264,589. This doesn't make sense if we're counting write-in votes for our general election results table as those votes in "Round 2" have to come from somewhere. How should we fix this? —twotwofourtysix^{(talk || edits)} 23:55, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@JenningsTheCrow - There's some details here I forgot about in my proposal at Talk:2022 Alaska Senate election#First Choice vs Round 1

It's worth noting that a ballot with a write-in ranked 1st and a regular candidate ranked 2nd will count as a write-in for the summary report, but a vote for the candidate in the 1st round of RCV. That's not the main issue here though.

There's a subtle difference between the summary report and the first round of the RCV report. The summary report includes ballots where the voter indicated their first choice. The Round 1 numbers in the RCV report are a tally of the voter's top choice after running the RCV algorithm. This matters when a voter indicates their second choice without indicating a first choice. See "What are the mistakes for marking a ballot in the general election that a voter needs to avoid?" in the AK DoE FAQ. "If you skip one rank, your votes will still count. If you skip two or more ranks, the counting will stop there and only ranks before the two skipped ranks will count." The division webpage states, "The Summary Report only shows 1st Choice results from Round 1."

So, if a voter ranks candidate A second without indicating a first choice, their vote will not show up in the summary report, but will show up in the first round of the RCV report as a vote for candidate A.

The Summary Results and RCV report are both official election results. The current table is not accurate, because it reports the summary results as the round 1 results, while omitting the round 1 results of the RCV process. I think it's important we show the official election results as reported by the AK DoE, even though this detail of the process is confusing and not documented very well. Perhaps the quotes I've provided (with clarifying statements) would be sufficient context to reduce confusion among readers. 71.162.7.170 (talk) 19:19, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

With my previous comment in mind, here is my attempt at an updated table

2022 Alaska's at-large congressional district election
Party		Candidate	First Choice			Round 1			Round 2			Round 3
Party		Candidate	Votes	%	Transfer	Votes	%	Transfer	Votes	%	Transfer	Votes	%
	Democratic	Mary Peltola (incumbent)	128,553	48.77%	+202	128,755	48.66%	+1,031	129,786	49.22%	+7,477	137,263	54.96%
	Republican	Sarah Palin	67,866	25.74%	+464	68,330	25.82%	+1,069	69,399	26.32%	+43,072	112,471	45.04%
	Republican	Nick Begich III	61,513	23.33%	+992	62,505	23.62%	+1,994	64,499	24.46%	-64,499	Eliminated
	Libertarian	Chris Bye	4,570	1.73%	+429	4,999	1.89%	-4,999	Eliminated
	Write-in		1,108	0.42%	-1,108	Eliminated
Total votes			263,610			264,589			263,684			249,734
Blank or inactive ballots						2,208		+905	3,113		+13,950	17,063
	Democratic hold

Summary of Changes

Inclusion of the Summary Report as "First Choice"
Changing "Inactive ballots" to "Blank or inactive ballots". In the official results, it appears that ballots that only included a vote for a write in candidate are reported as "blank" in Round 1 of RCV. Combining this with the previously mentioned issue where votes may be counted in round 1 but not as part of the first choice tallying (if a candidate is listed 2nd and there was no 1st choice), it's not possible to tell how many ballots actually had no votes. Thus, "Blank or Inactive" appears to be a more apt description.
Formatting of total votes. It seemed unnecessary and visually messy to repeatedly state that the total votes were 100% of the vote, so I've widened the cells with the vote totals instead.
Formatting of "Blank or inactive ballots". I've also removed the percentage of inactive votes. This is because it is inconsistent with the candidate percentages (i.e. The candidate percentages are out of active ballots, while the inactive votes were measured against a larger set of ballots). I'm not opposed to the data if it can be included in a clear way. The district 2 table at 2022 United States House of Representatives elections in Maine tries to cover it as % (Gross) vs. % (Net), but I don't think it's particularly clear.

I'm not totally satisfied with the "Total Votes" and "Blank or Inactive Ballots" rows, but I think the overall table is clear. My main concern is making sure both the Summary Report and Round 1 results are included, which fixes the errors in the current table. 71.162.7.170 (talk) 21:20, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Twotwofourtysix @JenningsTheCrow

Seeing no objections, I've added the proposed changes in this article.

When I have time, I'll plan to update the results sections for other races that went to RCV in Alaska (including at 2022 Alaska Senate election)

71.162.7.170 (talk) 22:57, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Considering that "Nick Begich" + "Write-in" is still lower than next lowest candidate, so there is no plausible chance that Begich wins, one round is skipped entirely, and the 3rd round is in reality the 2nd round. —CX Zoom[he/him] ^{(let's talk • {C•X})} 10:48, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Context: @CX Zoom and I started a discussion at Talk:2022 Alaska's at-large congressional district special election, which I redirected here to centralize it.

The official results from the state of Alaska have a summary result which includes the 3 candidates and write-in votes, and the RCV results. This includes Round 1, which has all 3 candidates but no write-in votes, and round 2 which includes only Palin and Peltola.

I understand other jurisdictions run RCV elections by eliminating all non-viable candidates immediately, but Alaska does not. Do you have any objections to including the 3 sets of official election results? 71.162.7.170 (talk) 18:02, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Seeing no further objections, I've restored the version with all sets of results. 71.162.7.170 (talk) 00:08, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Cast vote record

@108.30.55.246 I think the cast vote record is publicly available now, which means we could make a definitive statement on whether or not Peltola was the Condorcet winner this time around. (I'm guessing yes, because she only needs 3-4% of Palin's voters to rank her second, or 6-8% to bullet-vote.) –Sincerely, A Lime 16:42, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]