Alaska’s current primary voting system creates political mayhem.
Mail-in and early voting is already underway for the Aug. 20 primary, but in the end, nearly every candidate vying for state office will make it onto the general ballot no matter how few primary votes they garner.
Thanks to a narrowly-passed ballot measure in 2020, voters are currently stuck with ranked-choice voting and a “non-partisan,” jungle primary, in which the top four vote getters in each race automatically advance to the general election in November.
Since most state races have only four or fewer candidates, the primary vote is largely pointless. Only in the contest for U.S. Congress will the field be substantially winnowed through the primary. In that race, 12 candidates have thrown their hats into the ring. The top four in the primary will proceed to the general.
But in nearly every other race for State House or Senate, the primary election is little more than a popularity contest with no real ramifications in terms of eliminating unpopular candidates. In fact, in all but two of 50 races, every candidate running for the Alaska Legislature will make it through to the general election.
In practical terms, this means the general election ballots will include numerous races in which candidates from the same party are running against a three or four-man field, thereby splitting the vote, and perhaps delivering victory to a candidate who is not actually preferred by the majority of voters.
Under Alaska’s traditional party primary system, fringe candidates would have been weeded out for the general. Now, however, voters are put in a situation where they have to rank up to four candidates in the general election. If no candidate wins an outright majority in the first round, the least popular candidate is dropped, and his second-place votes are given to the remaining candidates to see if any of them can cobble together a majority in the second round of tabulation. That continues until one candidate has a majority of votes, even if many of those come from second-place votes from the eliminated candidates.
This places political parties in a conflicted and often confusing situation, where they have to spend time urging voters to select the preferred candidate as their first choice, while also asking them to rank that same candidate as the second choice if they prefer an alternative candidate as their first choice.
ALASKA WATCHMAN DIRECT TO YOUR INBOX
In an effort to avoid this tangled web, a number of Republican Party Districts across Alaska have issued resolutions calling on GOP candidates running for the U.S. Congressional seat to voluntarily drop out of the general election if they are not the top Republican in the jungle primary.
At first glance, this seems like a reasonable idea. If U.S. Congressional candidates with little support in the primaries simply drop out, the party would be able to galvanize around a single candidate in the general election for U.S. Congress. This means less money spent on promoting multiple candidates, and less time educating voters about how to rank candidates in order to ensure at least one GOP candidate is successful in the general.
The problem is that many voters are sitting out the primary election because they don’t see the point in casting a ballot when nearly every candidate – apart from the U.S. Congressional race – will advance anyway. This raises the question as to how accurate the primary vote will be in determining which U.S. Congressional candidate will be most popular in the general.
Add to this the fact that, during the primary, Democratic voters can vote for Republican candidates – and vice versa. This could skew public perception on just how much actual party support any given U.S. Congressional candidate really has. It may be that a bunch of Democrats vote for a left-leaning RINO in the primary, just to make it look like that candidate has the bulk of Republican support moving into the general. Come the general, however, those Democratic voters will certainly back the Democratic candidate, while ranking a RINO Republican as their second choice.
No matter how you slice it, the jungle-primary and the ranked-choice voting are a tangled matrix that can be easily manipulated by political operatives to yield results that do not reflect the will of the electorate.
Thankfully, Alaskans have a golden opportunity to do away with jungle primaries and RCV by voting “yes” on Ballot Measure 2. If it passes in November, Alaska will restore party primaries and the traditional voting system for all future elections.
HOW TO VOTE IN ALASKA’S PRIMARY ELECTION
— Click here for information on how – and where – to vote prior to Aug. 20 in the primary election.
— Click here for information on how to vote on primary election day (Aug. 20).
The views expressed here are those of the author.
16 Comments
Yes, a serious mess but remember that Ranked Choice Voting puts this state in that mess. So, its very simple, to vote to rid the state of Ranked Choice Voting by voting for the bill to rid the state of that voting mess. Remember, Lisa Murkowski only, is responsible for the mess this voting method creates. Its time to take back the state and put health in our government with a good election voting system and choices better served for everyone. Rid the state of rank choise voting by voting it out.
Indeed, and I continue to call it “Rigged Choice Voting”.
Likewise.
I disagree Diana! Mike pacarro was bribed by Lisa murkowski to essentially campaign for her on the public airwaves! He needs to get another Covid jab!!!
In addition to everything being a mess, Nancy Dahlstrom won’t get out, we still have RCV to deal with. On top of those issues, the left is, once again, pushing another petition that they are going to collecting signatures for two years that is going to “keep dark money out.” How many unknowing victims are going to sign that petition? There are already people falling for it. Are there any “honest” petitions out there right now? I don’t know. All I know is that people need to read the entire petition and the fine print before they sign on the dotted line. I think that this is happening because our Repeal Rank Choice voting petition did not address the funding issue.
I can see my second post just made has been marked for moderation. Did the first post go to the moderation pile?
Actually, ranked choice voting (RCV) offers several benefits: (1) Voters can rank candidates by preference rather than voting for the “lesser of two evils,” which can lead to more honest and representative voting. (2) By allowing voters to rank multiple candidates, RCV can better reflect voter preferences, leading to outcomes that more accurately represent the electorate’s views. (3) RCV can reduce the impact of vote splitting among similar candidates, making it easier for third-party or independent candidates to compete without fears of “wasting” votes. (4) Candidates have an incentive to appeal to a broader audience to secure second or third-choice votes, which can lead to less negative campaigning and more constructive debates. (5) RCV ensures that elected officials have broader support, as a candidate must secure a majority of votes (or second-choice votes) to win, rather than just a plurality. (6) Finally, by redistributing votes from eliminated candidates, RCV helps avoid scenarios where similar candidates split the vote and unintentionally help elect a less preferred candidate. Overall, ranked choice voting can lead to more representative and fair election outcomes, fostering a healthier democratic process.
That is a very utopian view you have there Mr. Hart, but you have clearly left out the way that ranked choice voting can easily become rigged choice voting. Address that, which was the point of Mr. Davidson’s article and we can have an adult conversation.
The reason you all don’t like it is because it doesn’t elect the far right people that they want. Hopefully Alaskans will continue to keep these trumpets out of the government.
Paul, very few believe what you are saying. We have been through it, experienced it and we know the truth about RCV. It is unfortunate that the evil goes on and on and on trying to keep their lies alive. Not only unfortunate – it is sickening. Looking forward to a world without lies.
The benefits of a voting system “offering”:
(1) no ballot-audit trail after the second count,
(2) only 5% of the machine ballot count correlated with a ballot hand count,
(3) ballot exhaustion,
(4) ballots (votes) arbitrarily discarded by unelected government employees,
(5) ballot count done by machines operating on proprietary software,
(6) vote-tabulating machines susceptible to corruption caused by thumb-drive insertion while counting votes,
(7) election observers who, due to system complexity, secrecy, and absence of credible ballot audit trails, have no idea what they’re observing,
(8) unnecessarily delayed election results,
(9) absence of transparency in the election process,
(10) no forensic audits of the election process or if they are, results which are never publicized,
(11) no knowledge of what Dominion vote-tabulating equipment actually does internally,
(12) no credible reason why Dominion gear must be used instead of paper ballots, whether or how it can be manipulated locally or remotely, with or without operators’ knowledge, to produce election outcomes with possibly predetermined margins
.
…seem dubious, at best.
.
The short story about the wonders of Ranked Choice Voting may be seen at these links:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XXdmq_pTr8A
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b2zwQp8AlYQ
.
What do you think, Paul, do these things justify voters’ trust in RCV and government employees who operate it?
The Osama (as Ted Kennedy called him) worshipers are obeying his stated plan to fundamentally change America. RCV is vital to corrupt traditional one citizen, one vote elections.
The fact that foreigners are able and have channeled money through a complex chain of .org lackeys to elect change agents and fund insane “voter” initiatives explains the fraud. I can only believe that it is a spiritual force preventing so many from absorbing reality. Every generation has delt with gradual shifts of societal norms, but recent accelerated government mandates of social change are unprecedented, and un-human.
Call the Mike pacarro show and give him crap for giving us RCV!
Thank you for starting to pull back the curtain on ranked-voting. There are many ways that ranked-voting can be manipulated to the detriment of conservative voters and values voters especially. Let’s take the current congressional race for instance. The political establishment is hoping through the current race for Congress to convince some portion of conservative voters and candidates to buy into the notion of winning the primary as somehow necessary for a conservative candidate to compete in the general election.
Note: This same establishment supported Begich running after he lost the special primary to Palin, and again after he lost the special election to Palin, and again after he lost the regular primary to Palin. Begich went on to lose to Palin four times, with significant establishment Republican support all four times. Why? Because, at the time, he was running against Sarah Palin, who has run against the Republican establishment every time she has run for statewide office. The truth is that conservative challengers almost always run with a significant fundraising disadvantage to their establishment-backed opponent. Knowing this, why would the establishment want to encourage conservative candidates to be sure they “win” the primary? It comes down to dollars and cents. RINO’s would love to see conservative candidates investing as much of their meager funds in the primary, instead of in the one election that counts in November. By selling conservative candidates on the necessity of winning the primary they will have that many fewer dollars to spend in November. The Republican establishment would love to sell conservative candidates on the idea of making a public declaration that they will bow out if they don’t win the primary. As a candidate who is trying to win an election (as opposed to just running to curry political favors) that would be an idiotic move to make. Step back and consider the impacts that making such an announcement has on fundraising for the conservative candidate. As a potential donor to a candidate do you want to give your money to a candidate who is “in it to win it” and is committed to going the distance to the general election no matter what, or would you rather give your money to a candidate who might not even still be around after the primary election? Chances are you will think about holding back at least a portion of your donation until you are sure your candidate is g going to drop out. What this means for conservative candidates is 1) Less support from conservative voters and volunteers if they don’t pledge to drop out, or 2) Less (or slower) support from conservative donors if they do. Either or both of which will help RINO’s continue to stay in office and reinforce in the minds of RINO’s that conservatives really are the rubes they always took them to be. Don’t buy into the traps peddled by the establishment, even when it is a fellow conservative who is peddling those lies on their behalf.
Ranked Choice Voting disenfranchises voters that are too stupid to understand how it works. Unfortunately, this only seems to affect conservative Republicans.
Between Joel Davidson and Rep. David Eastman, the disadvantages of RCV are explained very well. Also, Palin encouraged her voters to put Peltola second, the same type of thing she did when she supported Bill Walker against her own Lt. governor, Sean Parnell when he was running for re-election. Palin was one reason Peltola won, RCV being the other.