Ranked‑choice can flip odds

Election forecasting models that explicitly simulate ranked‑choice voting (RCV) outcomes can produce materially different probabilities than models or markets that treat RCV as a minor rounding issue. In tight contests (e.g., Alaska’s Senate race) small shifts in how second‑choice transfers are modeled can change the projected winner and explain systematic model/market divergences. — This matters because many observers, journalists and bettors assume topline first‑round margins map directly to victory odds — which is false under RCV and can mislead public expectations and market prices.