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.
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.
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.
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.