Last week I waited an hour to early vote. Normally I vote on election day, but I wanted to get it done this year as I will be slammed on Tuesday getting ready for our Election Central event at the Egan Center.
I voted no on Ballot Measure 2, which aims to repeal Alaska’s open primary and ranked choice voting general election system that voters narrowly adopted in 2020.
In 2020, I voted against adopting the new system because, even though I wanted the open primary, I was concerned the ranked choice element would confuse voters. I was wrong about that. Not only were voters not confused, the ranked choice tabulation did not apply to the vast majority of races in 2022.
Truthfully, I am ambivalent on ranked choice voting. The sole reason I voted no on Ballot Measure 2 is to keep the open primary.
A single open primary not only gives the nearly 60% of Alaskans who do not register with a party a fairer shot at running for office, it also prevents extreme or fringe Republicans and Democrats from winning their respective primaries. We all remember how toxic the old partisan primary system was.
Many of those encouraging a yes vote on Ballot Measure 2 focus on how much they hate the ranked choice element of the system. The truth is most races in Alaska were not decided using ranked choice voting in 2022, and won’t be this year either.
In 2022, a redistricting year, 62 seats were up – 59 legislative seats (40 House, 19 Senate), governor, U.S. Senate, and U.S. House. Only 12 of these races, or 19%, were decided using ranked choice tabulation.
For races with one or two candidates, ranked choice does not apply. It only applies to races with three or four candidates where no candidate gets more than 50% in the first round.
Recall Governor Mike Dunleavy (R – Alaska) was re-elected in the first round with 50.29% of the vote. He was the first Republican governor re-elected in Alaska since Jay Hammond in 1978 and the first governor re-elected since Tony Knowles in 1994.
Of the 59 legislative races in 2022, 56, or 95%, had one, two, or three candidates. Thirty-seven of them, or 62%, had one or two candidates, meaning ranked choice voting did not apply to those races.
Of the 22 races with three or four candidates, only ten were decided using ranked choice voting. This is because in 12 of those races, the winner got more than 50% of the vote in the first round.
In the ten legislative races in 2022 decided by ranked choice voting, eight resulted in a Republican winning. To be fair, some of these races had all or majority Republican candidates and some of those Republicans are criticized by conservatries for being too moderate. Nonetheless, no one can argue that ranked choice voting did not benefit Republicans.
After the 2022 election, Republicans took back control of the House after six years of Democrat-led majority coalitions. A Republican governor was re-elected for the first time in 44 years.
Many critics will point to Representative Mary Peltola (D – Alaska) being elected using ranked choice voting after the late Republican Don Young served nearly 50 years in the U.S. House. The truth is she would have likely won in the old system. Republican Sarah Palin got more votes than Republican Nick Begich in the special primary election and regular primary election. With Palin’s high negatives, Peltola almost certainly would have defeated her in a head-to-head race.
And of course let’s not forget about Senator Lisa Murkowski (R – Alaska). It’s no secret many Republicans, especially the party types, don’t like her. They claim the new voting system was designed to get her re-elected. But after losing the 2010 primary to Joe Miller, Murkowski went on to win re-election as a write-in candidate – something that last happened in 1954.
Had the old voting system remained in 2022, Murkowski likely would have run as a petition candidate, which would have required her to get signatures to appear on the ballot. Republican Kelly Tshibaka did not have anywhere near the name ID or momentum as Miller did in 2010. Murkowski would have beat her.
Now let’s take a look at the upcoming election. Of the 50 legislative seats up, 37, or 74%, only have one or two candidates. Of the remaining 13 races with three or four candidates, my bet is eight or nine, or 16-18%, will be decided using ranked choice tabulation. But even if it’s all 13, that’s only a quarter of all of the legislative races. And in most of these cases, the leader in the first round will end up winning the race.
The big race this year is something of a re-match between Mary Peltola and Nick Begich. This is essentially what would happen if we had the old system. Begich got more votes than Republican Nancy Dahlstrom in the primary, which caused her to withdraw even though she did not have to.
There are two other candidates on the U.S. House ballot, incarcerated Democrat Eric Hafner and Alaska Independence Party (AIP) candidate John Wayne Howe. In the old system, Howe would also be on the ballot as the AIP has ballot access. That would likely harm Begich in a close race as Peltola could win in that system with a plurality. Regardless of the system, this will be a close race.
No voting system is perfect. Under the old system, political parties could run place holder candidates and then switch them out after the primary. Under the current system, partiers exercise less control. Under the old system a candidate could win with a plurality of the vote instead of the majority. Under the new system, the winners of many races are no longer decided in the primary.
I am not a vocal supporter of ranked choice voting, I could take it or leave it. But I am a huge fan of the open primary. Voting no on Ballot Measure 2 ensures the open primary remains. If you don’t like ranked choice voting but like the open primary, remember that the vast majority of races in Alaska were not deiced using ranked choice voting in 2022 and won’t be in 2024.
And the crew that went apoplectic that you voted for Trump will be along shortly to scratch your belly and call you a good boy.
Personally I disagree with you on BM2 but you have every right to vote the way you did without ridicule or scorn.
“…….. it also prevents extreme or fringe Republicans and Democrats from winning their respective primaries………”
This is exactly why it was sold to us; the 2010 primary loss of Lisa Murkowski to Joe Miller. It will work……..for a while. If you think this will keep he Murkowskis of the world in power like royalty forever, you’ve got another thing coming. Extremists are extreme. It gets uglier from here.
The real problem is that Murkowski won the 2010 election with only 39% of the vote, which means that 61% of the voters voted for someone else. “Plurality win” is no way to choose a major office holder, and ranked-choice voting eliminates that.
Supplanting a persons primary vote for a 2nd, 3rd, or 4th choice does not indicate the will of the majority. Consider a case of 4 colors placed on the ballot with a simple choice. “What is your is favorite color?” In round one of the vote all 4 colors get right around 25%. At the end of 4th round purple gets to 50%+1. In this case, purple is not the majority choice. Purple still only 25% favorite and 25+1% second,third and forth favorite. Purple wins but no matter how you parse it, purple is NOT the majority choice. In the… Read more »
“purple is NOT the majority choice.” -Scott Of course it is. Because more than 50% just told you they prefer purple to any of the three other colors. “[A] binary runoff is the only way to come to a majority.” -Scott Ranked choice voting IS a binary runoff. As in all runoffs, the final choice is between two candidates. And the one who gets over 50% wins. All RCV does is hold all the runoffs at the same time on a single election day, rather than weeks later. I voted for LaFrance last April. I didn’t need to wait until… Read more »
Scott obviously does understand (or is pretending not to understand) how ranked-choice voting works. A clue is that RCV is also called “instant run off voting.”
… does *not* understand (or is …
I’m not convinced that because something only comes into play 16-18% or 19%, or 25% means that is worth keeping. It just means that out of the multiple topics covered in the original ballot measure (which is unconstitutional, regardless of what the AK Supreme Court ruled) that it only comes into play 16-18% or 19%, or 25% of the time. I’d also disagree that it isn’t confusing, while you and I might find counting to 2 or 3, or even 4 there are commercials and flyers telling people how to count because it confuses them. It’s unfortunate that the AK… Read more »
Clearly the Alaska Supreme Court should have consulted you, because you know better than they do what’s “obviously unconstitutional.”
No doubt.
RCV favors Democrats. Republicans don’t like the idea of voting games.
It favors Democrats (and RINOs) today. The moment it doesn’t work for them anymore, it will be ended for the next scam.
No it doesn’t.
RCV has no party bias.
At all.
Boo hoo hoo 😢
“……..RCV has no party bias………”
Correct. That’s why, after conservatives figure out how to defeat it, it will be dumped by Democrats and RINOs. Every new strategy catches the unaware side by surprise. When the surprise is overcome, a new surprise is necessary.
What’s to “figure out” about RCV?
There’s a ballot measure to repeal it right now. RCV will succeed or fail.
All RCV does is facilitate instant runoff-elections.
Why is that partisan?
“……….What’s to “figure out” about RCV?…….”
How to efficiently offer a single party candidate that actually represents the party. In other words, how to avoid a (or another) primary election during the general election, but more importantly, how to primary out your problem candidate in time to plan a general election victory over opposing parties.
The Republican Party can and will evolve to master this silly voting scam, and when they do, Democrats and RINOs will do away with it.
Most Alaskans aren’t Republicans OR Democrats. Or Greens or Trekkies or Swifties.
We don’t care about party.
We care about people.
If your little club wants to pick your fave, go ahead.
You don’t need state money to pay for it.
Why not just have your GOP friends agree to only run one GOP candidate?
Schedule a big meeting in July. Call it a convention. Every GOPer who shows up gets a vote. And through whatever process you want, settle on one candidate.
Then that’s the only GOPer on the primary and general election ballots. Because you all agree to not run against them.
It would completely neutralize your perceived RCV problem. COMPLETELY!
Too hard?
Why not “rank the red,” as GOP campaign operatives urged voters to do in 2022? Instead, Sarah Palin told her supporters to vote only for her and not give Nick Begich a 2nd-choice vote. Begich followed suit with his supporters. With fewer 2nd-choice votes transferring to Palin or Begich, Peltola was the default winner. So, Palin’s ego and polarizing influence sabotaged her own election.
A law that Trumpists like Jeff Landfield surely don’t care that he broke:
“[A] voter ‘may not exhibit’ his or her ballot ‘to an election official or any other person so as to enable any person to ascertain how the voter marked the ballot.’ Posting a picture of a marked ballot on Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, Snapchat, or even texting it to a friend would clearly violate that.“
-Anchorage Daily News, Nov. 8, 2016
Alaska Statute 15.15.280.
The penalty is that the ballot is not counted. (AS 15.15.300)
But again, laws do not apply to Trumpists.
The funny thing about laws is they actually have meaning and explanations, and they are easy to find if you know how to look. You cite an ADN article from 2016 that omits a part of the statute. Alaska Statute 15.15.280 says, in it’s entirety “Prohibiting the exhibition of marked ballots. Subject to AS 15.15.240 a voter may not exhibit the voter’s ballot to an election official or any other person so as to enable any person to ascertain how the voter marked the ballot.” It doesn’t say anything about what the ADN editorilized regarding facebook or tweets. It does… Read more »
Nope. You’re very confused. Or dishonest. Read: Sec. 15.15.280. Prohibiting the exhibition of marked ballots. Subject to AS 15.15.240 a voter may not exhibit the voter’s ballot to an election official or any other person so as to enable any person to ascertain how the voter marked the ballot. A person, then, cannot legally “exhibit” their ballot to “any other person” to show them how they voted. The “Subject to AS 15.15.240” bit is to allow a person who needs assistance to vote to show their ballot to an elections official. Think, say, of a blind voter who wants confirmation… Read more »
If you read ALL of the statute, which I’m glad you have now that I’ve shared it with you, and you read ALL of the statues before and after the one you provided a partial quote of and have a misunderstanding of dating back to the time you read it almost a decade ago you will understand what is being talked about in AS 15.15. AS 15 covers Elections and Ballots. AS 15.15.240 comes before AS 15.15.280, the section you have partially quoted above and has led to your at least near decade long misunderstanding. Since the very first words… Read more »
Nope.
Wrong.
It’s illegal in Alaska for a voter to “exhibit” their marked ballot to “any other person” to show them how they voted. AS 15.15.280.
Such as, say, by publishing a photo of their marked ballot to the world on the internet.
The only exception is for a voter who needs assistance making sure that their marked ballot correctly reflects their intentions. AS 15.15.240.
Your repetitive, meandering gibberish notwithstanding.
Well that’s a compelling argument on your behalf. The ADN offers a partial quote of the law simply disregarding what it chooses and adding words that do not exist to the law, you just parrot the opinion from close to a decade ago and add your own words to the law…all very compelling. You seem to believe you have an airtight case of a law breaker in action that are based upon the words ADN printed and you believe. Now the question is will you take your concerns to the authorities in order to expose the laws you believe were… Read more »
Thank you.
Please let us know what the authorities say.
Any law that prohibits an individual citizen from “exposing” his ballot is about the clearest violation of the 1st Amendment there can be.
The only reason this law is on the books is because no one has cared enough to challenge it.
Erik,
This statute is exclusively for when a person is in the act of voting and requires assistance and how they go about exhibiting it while receiving that assistance during voting. While I suppose someone could make a case for challenging it, it would have to be enforced somehow on someone before they could even beging the process. I’ve never heard of anyone getting in trouble for this and until Dan brings his version supplied by the ADN to the attention of the authorities we likely never will.
NO ONE CARES WHY.
YES ON 2.
lol
No On 2 appreciates your calm, well-reasoned post.
The one question nobody is asking is: if we keep ranked choice voting, then WHY ARE WE STILL PAYING FOR A PRIMARY????
The primary is worthless for 95% of the races which have 4 or fewer candidates, since they all move on.
And there is no good reason to whittle down to top 4 in the small percentage of races with 5 or more candidates.
With RCV, paying for a primary is literally throwing money away.
Imagine how long the November ballot would be if we didn’t winnow the field with an August primary.
Maybe that’s not reason enough to keep the primary. But it’s a good reason.
“……..Imagine how long the November ballot would be if we didn’t winnow the field with an August primary………”
No imagination needed. Wait until you see the ballot for POTUS. (Apparently, despite your attempts to appear knowledgable, you haven’t reviewed the sample ballots sent to you, if you are indeed a registered voter with a mailing address, by the Division of Elections)……….
The number of Presidential candidates on this month’s Alaska ballot has nothing to do with RCV.
NOTHING.
First time voter?
Yes, you prefer the total contempt Alaska GOP party bosses showed to their voters in 2020.
When they refused to even allow Alaskans to vote in their Presidential primary.
To show obedience to their Führer.
alaskapublic.org/2019/09/23/alaska-gop-scraps-2020-presidential-primary/
Reggie doesn’t seem to know that there is no Presidential primary in Alaska so there is no way to winnow the field. What’s more, no presidential candidate is chosen by any primary or suite of primaries; all presidential candidates are chosen in house by a group of the faithful.
Bringing up the number of candidates in the POTUS section of the Alaska ballot is a red herring and a waste of space on this page.
We don’t need to imagine anything. We have the 2024 primary ballot to look at. Only 1 house district and only 1 Senate district had more than 4 candidates. So the State paid millions of dollars to conduct a primary who’s only result was to eliminate 3 candidates, and didn’t affect the vast majority of voters. It’s literally throwing money away.
“………..WHY ARE WE STILL PAYING FOR A PRIMARY????………”
To maintain party validity. If you love the way Kamala Harris became the Democratic “nominee” for POTUS, you will love the future under RCV. But, more accurately, try to put some deep thought into a democratic process that has no parties, and that should be an even more terrifying picture of our future.
You’re confusing RCV with open/closed primaries.
You’re an obvious commie!
That was a mistake.
I voted yes on 2 for my own personal determination what was best but IF I did not do my homework and was unsure on how to vote all I had to do is watch one of Murkowskis commercial and do the opposite of what she supports…. even though Alaska is a welfare state and depends on pork we need a conservative thats…well a conservative. Mr. Stevens did both for us for a long time.