[jpmoral]

IIUC how it would've worked in Australia is:

First round:

Begic and Peltola garner the most first-place votes, Palin is eliminated.

Voters who ranked Palin first get their second choice promoted to first. Presumably that would be Begic for most voters.

Second round:

Begic first choice votes + Palin > Begic votes vs. Peltola votes

Looking at the data in the reddit vote breakdown thread it looks like Begic would've won with this method.

[wnoise]

I don't know if they're exactly following the Australian STV rules, but it is quite similar.

Begich had the fewest amount of _first_ place votes, so was eliminated first.

However, Begich was ranked ahead of Palin (and Pelota for that matter) on more ballots than vice-versa.

[jpmoral]

> Begich had the fewest amount of _first_ place votes, so was eliminated first.

Ah, I misunderstood that part. Under Australian rules voters who ranked Begich first would have had their second choices promoted to first and added to the respective candidates. In this case ~27k for Palin and ~15.5k for Peltola. Then the totals are compared.

Looking at it that way it's not so clear cut that it was unfair that Peltola was declared the winner. I think reasonable arguments can be made either way.

One thing though is that on Australian ballots all candidates must be ranked.

[wnoise]

> Under Australian rules voters who ranked Begich first would have had their second choices promoted to first and added to the respective candidates. In this case ~27k for Palin and ~15.5k for Peltola. Then the totals are compared.

Exactly what happened. Palin was a spoiler -- had she not run, Begich would ha e won instead.

> One thing though is that on Australian ballots all candidates must be ranked.

That's kind of ridiculous. It's quite unwieldy and leads to many spoiled ballots. And I don't think forcing ordering past the point of caring really changes anything.