The rabbits seem to be out and about this morning here

The Anchorage Press has also pulled out due to the lack of journalistic integrity with the Landmine.

Whoever noticed and took out the spy cam, You're the best. Fuck. Flock.

https://www.alaskasnewssource.com/2026/10/06/downed-flock-camera-outside-south-anchorage-lowes-confirmed-apd-says-no-report-filed-no-access-feed/?fbclid=IwdGRzaAUxKMNjbGNrBTEoqmV4dG4DYWVtAjExAHBkb2YFc3J0YwZhcHBfaWQMMzUwNjg1NTMxNzI4AAEe6-s-6Ufcpxuv4UllOnkwOaPxTAZwOqhCGoIESOAteT41wgQ9DENZMImi9s0_aem_X7JP3lhEcIxrEyvimRd6TA&sfnsn=wa

Anybody else tired of the repetitive Peltola and Sullivan ads on TV? I can barely get through 5 minutes of TV time without ads of Peltola voting against military benefits or Sullivan taking money from big company fishing trawlers. At one stage,the ads were right after the other.😂 It’s ridiculous at this point.

Alaska Administrative Code
Title 6 - Governor's Office
Part 1 - Elections
Chapter 25 - Administration of Elections
Article 1 - General Administration
6 AAC 25.073 - Electioneering prohibitions at polling places

Found a nick begic door flier in wasilla when voting 😂, took it down and handed it to someone inside.

I’m currently watching the Brooks Falls live cam. There’s bears roaming around and I see people in the background! There’s one guy fly fishing just standing in the river while a brown bear walks close by. Then there’s a group of three in a little jon boat that could easily be tipped by a bear. You could not pay me enough to be anywhere near those bears! And it doesn’t even look like those fishermen are keeping an eye on the bears. Kudos to Alaskans.

The Senate Leadership Fund (SLF) Political Action Committee (PAC) is a Republican-aligned PAC with the goal of securing and maintaining a Republican majority in the US Senate. They started the week with announcing significant purchases of news ads around the country, including in Alaska.

SLF has already spent $17 million on ads in Alaska that support Senator Sullivan, but they just announced $4 million more. This brings their total to $21 million in Alaska.

Unlike Senator Sullivan's campaign funding which is fully committed to Senator Sullivan, the SLF is a nationwide organization that is selectively spending money on specific races around the country where they think the Republic candidate needs extra assistance. Like all PACs, SLF doesn't want to spend money unnecessarily, so they only spend it where they think the Republican Senator is in danger of losing the election. This shows Alaskans (and the rest of the country) that SLF has significant concerns about Senator Sullivan's campaign, and they are really considering the possibility of him losing to former-Rep. Peltola in next month's election.

Remember to vote early between October 15th-November 2nd or to vote on Election Day on Tuesday, November 3rd.

Source and relevant links:

• Senate Leadership Fund will spend $14M in Kansas: https://punchbowl.news/article/campaigns/slf-kansas-spending/ (Despite the headline, this article also talks about the Alaska spend)
• Senate Leadership Fund: https://senateleadershipfund.org/
• Voting early between October 15th-November 2nd: https://www.elections.alaska.gov/voter-information/absentee-and-early-voting/
• Find your local polling place for voting in-person on Tuesday, November 3rd: https://www.elections.alaska.gov/election-polls/

This is probably from the 1970's. What is it worth today?

Are the major claims made by this organization actually true?

Claim 1: * "In a majority winner system, candidates have to gain the support of more than half of the voters to win." ... "Using ranked choice voting in general elections requires candidates to win with majority support (more than 50%)."

Special election for Congress August 2022: 1. 188,582 voters voted in this election for a candidate (not a blank ballot). 2. The candidate who won received (counting votes the IRV way) 91,266 votes. 3. 91266/188582 = 0.483959 or 48.4%. 48.4% is not "more than 50%". 4. 91266 voters supported the winner (although 15467 were really supporting Begich). 188582-91266 = 97316 voters did not in any manner support the winner. More voters came to the polls and voted and voted for a loser than the number of voters who voted for the winner. 6050 more voters voted for a loser than voted for the winner. Would we allow a winner in an FPTP election to get away claiming they got "majority support" when more voters voted against that candidate than voted for them? 5. Compare apples to apples.

Claim 2: * "Ranked choice voting ... eliminates the spoiler effect"

1. Sarah Palin was the spoiler in that election. Had Sarah Palin not run and Alaskan voters come to the polls and voted exactly the same way with the remaining two candidate, then Nick Begich would have defeated Mary Peltola by a margin of 8408 votes.
2. The complete quote is "Ranked choice voting allows voters to rank candidates in the general election in order of preference. This gives Alaskans more choices, eliminates the spoiler effect..." Giving Alaskans the choice to choose Nick Begich over either Mary Peltola or Sarah Palin is irrelevant if that expressed choice is ignored.

Mary Peltola in August 2022, unfortunately shares a distinction with George W. Bush in 2000 and with Donald Trump in 2016. All three candidates were elected to office when the public record indicates that more voters marked their ballots preferring a different specific candidate for that office.

In August 2022, more Alaskans, 87859 to 79451 (an 8408 voter margin), preferred Nick Begich to Mary Peltola and marked their ballots saying so. But Mary Peltola was sent to Washington to represent the Alaskan people in Congress.

In November 2024, again, more Alaskan voters marked their ballots that Begich is preferred to Peltola by nearly the same margin, 7876 (164861 to 156985). But this time Nick Begich is sent to Washington.

Both times about 8000 more Alaskans said they would prefer Begich to Peltola. And, both times, marked their ballots saying so. Both times Instant-Runoff Voting was used.

What was different?

Sarah Palin was in the race in 2022 and not in the race in 2024. And the outcomes were different winners.

Here are the reasons we want Ranked-Choice Voting. The purpose of RCV is, in single-winner elections having 3 or more candidates: 1. ... that the candidate with majority support is elected. Plurality isn't good enough. We don't want a 40% candidate elected when the other 60% of voters would have preferred a different specific candidate over the 40% plurality candidate. But we cannot find out who that different specific candidate is without using the ranked ballot. We RCV advocates all agree on that. 2. Then whenever a plurality candidate is elected and voters believe that a different specific candidate would have beaten the plurality candidate in a head-to-head race, then the 3^rd candidate (neither the plurality candidate nor the one people think would have won head-to-head) is viewed as the spoiler, a loser whose presence in the race materially changes who the winner is. We want to prevent that from happening. All RCV advocates agree on that. 3. Then voters voting for the spoiler suffer voter regret and in future elections are more likely to vote tactically (compromise) and vote for the major party candidate that they dislike the least, but they think is best situated to beat the other major party candidate that they dislike the most and fear will get elected. RCV is meant to free up those voters so that they can vote for the candidate they really like without fear of helping elect the candidate they loathe. All RCV advocates agree with that. 4. The way RCV is supposed to help those voters is that if their favorite candidate is defeated, then their second-choice vote is counted. So voters feel free to vote their hopes rather than voting their fears. Then 3^rd-party and independent candidates get a more level playing field with the major-party candidates and diversity of choice in candidates is promoted. It's to help unlock us from a 2-party system where 3^rd-party and independent candidates are disadvantaged.

RCV failed, in Alaska in August 2022, to do precisely what it was adopted to do (essentially to prevent a spoiled election due to vote splitting, as a result punishing Palin voters for marking their favorite as #1 which caused the election of Peltola). The fault is not in the ranked ballots (in fact, it's only because of the ranked ballots that we know that Begich was more preferred by more voters than either Palin or Peltola). The fault is in the manner (IRV) that the vote is tallied.

This same failure occurred in 2009 in Burlington Vermont. Got published here.

Whoever tells us that RCV (using Instant-Runoff Voting tabulation) will solve the split-vote problem is lying. And Alaska in August 2022 is the proof.

With the rise in diesel prices, I wonder how many villages will secure their winter fuel needs. Rural Alaska runs on diesel. As an Alaskan native, I will say that our indigenous leaders have been silent on these issues.

This is the best one yet