Sarah Palin, Santa Claus Among 48 Candidates for Alaska's Open House Seat
The election serves as a trial run for Alaska's new voting process, which could be a boon for third-party candidates.

Alaska held a special election Saturday to fill the state's only seat in the House of Representatives. The office has been vacant since March, when Rep. Don Young passed away at age 88. Young, a Republican, had held the seat since 1973, less than 15 years after Alaska achieved statehood. While June 11 was the designated date of the election, the vote is being conducted primarily by mail. Ballots postmarked by that date will be accepted until June 21.
This is the first election since the state adopted entirely new voting rules in 2020. While the new methods themselves are not new, the particulars of Alaska's new system are novel, and could signal a creative way to shake up the two-party system.
Traditionally, each political party runs a primary to pick a candidate; then, each party's candidates compete in a general election in November. But Alaska now eschews party primaries, and all candidates run on a single ballot. Voters each choose a single candidate, and the top four candidates advance to the general election. (Since this is a special election, the final four will compete in August. The state will also hold its traditional primary the same day, before a general election in November.)
On Saturday's ballots, Alaskans chose from 48 candidates, some of them registered party members and others of "undeclared" party status. The most prominent is Sarah Palin, the former governor and 2008 Republican vice-presidential candidate. Despite not holding, or even seeking, elected office since resigning the governorship more than a decade ago, Palin had already advanced to the final ballot Sunday with 30 percent of the vote in an initial count.
Among the other candidates are Nick Begich III, member of a prominent Alaskan political family and the grandson of Don Young's immediate predecessor; and Santa Claus, a white-bearded, septuagenarian democratic socialist who legally changed his name in 2004 and serves on the city council of North Pole, Alaska. Begich is currently in second place and likely to advance. Claus is likely to be shunted back to North Pole, although ballots will still be received and counted until next week.
On the general election ballot, voters will select among the four final candidates using ranked choice voting (RCV), numbering them in order of preference. If a candidate receives a majority of votes as first choice, then that person wins outright. But if nobody receives a majority, then the lowest-performing candidate is eliminated, and every ballot with that candidate ranked first is recounted with its second choice as if it were the first. This continues until a majority winner is reached. Alaska is the second state to switch to RCV, although some states allow it in local races.
Ranked choice allows multiple candidates to run for a single seat but without having to go to the trouble of holding runoffs. It also broadens the bench beyond the traditional top two, as all candidates—including third-party candidates—compete on a level playing field. RCV allows voters to truly "vote their conscience," without worrying about whether their top choice will play spoiler.
Maine is the only state to have used RCV statewide, and there it has already shaken things up by electing a candidate who would otherwise have lost.
It seems extremely unlikely that any other candidate will be able to top Palin's name recognition (or, failing that, Begich's). But Alaska's unique new system could prove interesting, and useful, for less conventional candidates in the future.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
Santa Claus is a perfect name for a socialist running for office.
A true socialist Santa Claus would take from every home, and, in pre-green days, have left a lump of coal for everybody.
Except for the wreckers.
Coal's getting expensive again. Probably would have left a lump of 30-year Treasury bonds.
The question with this system is: why? This is not a primary election, this is a two-stage general election. I suppose it is better than California's version, which often results in two candidates of the same party in the 2nd round, but as a system it tends to favor parties running as few candidates as possible, and hence favors incumbents.
These new systems are designed to facilitate leftist outcomes.
And incumbency.
California version does that.
These systems in general tend to drive candidates farther to the margins, though. Like how everyone in a national primary is super progressive then when they have to face a republican they pretend to be moderate (I'm looking at you Harris) -- except, there's no need for moderation later. You get the extreme candidate who muckracks in the primary, and then they have no handicap in the general for being so extreme.
It could be more amusing to let only people who voted for a candidate from party X last time vote in the primary for party Y next time.
You get the extreme candidate who muckracks in the primary, and then they have no handicap in the general for being so extreme.
Or you get the mainstream Democrat vs. some total loon of a Peace & Freedom.
How is that person going to win an instant runoff situation?
Won't a person who is Extra Extreme be chosen #1 by the nuts that support their nuttery and then #10 by the rest of the field? If that can't be the #1 vote of a decent proportion of the populace, they will get eliminated in the first round, won't they?
you're correct. And we may see exactly that happen in this AK special election. The hardcore MAGA crowd is likely to rank Trump-endorsed Palin #1, but one of the other (less nutty) candidates #2. Current analyses show Palin pulling about 30-35% of the vote, but being eliminated in the second round of instant runoff, and most of her votes going to Begich, the slightly-less-nutty Republican.
Really? We are taking about Alaska and Maine, hardly socialist utopias. What I would say is that these are states with hard working people having their fill of politicians that think they are owed a living. These are socialist but rather people against political socialism Political socialism, where the politicians think the government should take care of the political class. BTW - both the major parties are political socialist.
Ranked choice voting drops the one who got the least votes, then recounts with them removed from the choices.
If everyone has R or D as a choice, then it's a matter of peeling away losers until R or D wins. The team that peels away the most losers wins. Pretty sure the left has more fringe parties than the right, so in the case where neither R nor D gets a majority, D will win as Green, Independent, Socialist, and whatever candidates are peeled off revealing the D. So in a way they are rigged to the left.
Except that not quit the way it works. First there are plenty of small parties from Libertarian P to Constitution P so the right could have just as many. Second is there is no telling what people's second choice is going to be. A person choice might be a Democrat but they could also second a moderate Republican.
I think the RCV is a greater threat to the far left and to the far right than it is to the center candidate from either party.
A person choice might be a Democrat but they could also second a moderate Republican.
In which case the Republican will never get the person's vote. It will always come down to D or R. G, L, C, S, and whatever else will only reveal a D or R.
Actually, that is not correct. I like to call a sequential runoff system or the IRV system that emulates it as "iterative plurality" voting. A runoff is hardly better than a one-round plurality vote. IRV/Runoff will still tend to produce polarity - Right and Left, if you will. I think the evidence is that there is a general evolution toward two statist parties. I suppose one might argue that two statists parties are "left", in which case I guess IRV would actually be rigged to the left.
Fact is, Maine and Alaska picked the worst of all ranked systems. In reality, we have Australia as an empirical example. IRV, just like ordinary plurality, will select for a two party system. However, thanks to discard, it becomes possible for a few minor parties to exist. If they start to grow, IRV breaks down in chaotic ways (see what I've said elsewhere in this thread) such as rank-reversal. As long as the minor parties stay minor, votes for the major party as a 2nd choice will smoothly transfer.
Your intended analysis of the Australian system depends on the parliamentary system - or, in more American terms, multi-seat districts.
Australia does use single seat IRV for the lower House. That is absolutely correct.
For the upper House, Australia does use a transferrable vote system that is proportional. It has it's own problems including significant vote wastage. For a host of reasons I oppose the idea of what is functionally minority choice but if PR is to be use, the Condorcet variant is vastly superior the Australian variant.
In this case, the electorate is broadly Republican. The jungle primary looks to be yielding 2 Republicans, one kinda-democrat (Al Gross, previously a democrat, now an independent, and not endorsed by the AK Democratic party), and one "other" (still counting votes among Santa (I - democratic socialist), Pelotsa (D), Constance (D), and one-of-several Republicans). In the RCV, a field of R, R, I, and D will allow the electorate to choose their preferred flavor of R, without 'splitting' or 'spoiling' their vote. In this particular case, most analyses show the "other" being eliminated, then Palin, then Begich v. Gross (with Begich winning). It actually gives an opportunity to field several candidates from a party, without 'stepping on toes'.
Top four? California only has top two. Alaska so behind the times. /sarc
Alaska is actually ahead of the times. The top-4 system allows a sensible level of 'filter' ahead of a ranked choice vote. Ranked Choice doesn't operate (per se) on a 2-candidate race. There's little that actually operates on a field of 48, which is the size of the primary field in AK. But the primary allows a 'skinny-down' of the field to proportions that voters can actually evaluate, and formulate informed ranking choices.
>>it has already shaken things up by electing a candidate who would otherwise have lost.
this is a goal?
Look at the candidates who've won recently. Is picking the loser such a bad idea?
They should pick someone at random, and make it two years compulsory service.
Followed by summary execution. Go full Vault 11 on them.
I miss the days when the loser in the presidential race became VP.
It happened in Oakland CA, where the original third-place holder "won"...and she was the worst mayor the city had seen in decades.
The article's summary is... too terse. In ME the original field was broader, with a segment of votes 'fragmented' across a few similar candidates. With the RCV 'instant runoff', the initial leader (with... 40ish percent of the vote, IIRC) didn't get a lot of 'second choice' votes, but the 'fragmented' vote consolidated into the eventual winner. Which is part of the point of RCV, to allow voters to express their opinion, without being shoe-horned into "strategic" voting choices.
So if you want to win you want more fringe parties on your side of the aisle than the other. That way more of your voters are revealed with every dropped loser.
Or just be the first choice of everyone in the first place.
Also, anyone remember when Eric Dondero used to proclaim Sarah Palin as the Second Coming of Our Savior?
No. But I do remember meeting a person whose family lived in Alaska and who complained that the Palin family usually got healthcare in Canada.
I find that hard to believe.
Anchorage is 48 miles from Wasilla, but Whitehorse, the nearest Canadian city with an equivalent sized hospital to Anchorage, is 672 miles away.
Also, if you don't have Yukon health insurance you still have to pay. And the Yukon is definitely not cheap.
An Alaskan would have known all that. I think that person was probably bullshitting you.
I'd love to see Sarah Palin's second coming!
I have it on good authority that she comes several times.
The problem with RCV is the voters. They often fail to vote their actual preferences, instead they attempt to vote strategically by putting their second choice in last place because they think it boosts the odds of their first choice.
But since it doesn't really matter (much) which Dem/Rep wins, then I'm in favor.
Got a citation for that or did you figure it all out yourself?
Most advocates of RCV suggest it allows people to put their first choice first and then back that up with the safest choice in second.
>allows people to put their first choice first and then back that up with the safest choice in second.
Key word is "allows."
Long conversations with people who actually do work in political choice theories convinced me that people don't always understand the rules of the game. In practice, they treat it like a points system.
I don't know how big an impact it has in the real world.
Strangely, it seems that some people do figure out that "bullet voting" is the optimal strategy in IRV. That's likely part of the reason that Australia disallowed it more than a century ago. The Social Choice people should have said something about non-monotonicity.
I'd recommend checking Brams and Fishburn - Approval Voting 2nd Edition. This is a very math-heavy book and promote the non-ranked AV is the simplest and best system precisely because it is so cheap to implement and simple to understand. I was actually trying to get the Libertarian nomination for Secretary of State of Indiana 20 years ago based on promoting AV. Mathematically, Condorcet's system is best but AV is a good 2nd. Personally, I like uniting Round Robin and AV together but it's difficult enough to discuss the ranked ballot that adding complexity is decidedly non-optimal.
The thing that people need to understand is that what is being called RCV is really IRV. The FairVote people who have been promoting this system for around 30 years, do not honestly represent how it works. Way back when, it began as a Trojan Horse for proportional representation. Because of non-monotonicity, putting your preferred choice 1st can perversely cause that choice to loose in favor of a lower ranked choice. I show how that works in my video. Part of the reason that the IRV people get away with putting out so much misinformation is that Social Choice is full of mathematics and is a rather obscure discipline in Political Science. In all modesty, I think my description of non-monotonicity is the simplest around.
IRV is a terrible non-reform and it will not deliver on its promises. Ironically the claims they make actually apply to Condorcet's system. For example - IRV advocates say that it will always find the majority winner. Nope. That's actually known as the "Condorcet Criteria" in Social Choice. Definitionally, the "true majority winner" is the candidate who beats all others head-to-head.
As people see the major political parties attempt to lock in control of power. There will be more experimentation like Alaska to attempt for the people to regain control of the political process.
Maine and Alaska's "RCV" is actually a terrible system called Instant Runoff Voting (IRV). I'm actually seeking the GOP nomination for Secretary of State at the Convention on 18 June - my major issue is for Indiana to adopt the ranked voting system developed by French mathematician Condorcet in the late 1700's. I and others are calling it Instant Round Robin. Here's a link to a video I shot last year that compares IRV and IRR:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=btDyhNiTfeM
I note that Condorcet brought mathematics to the study of elections - this discipline in political science is known as "Social Choice Theory".
IRV is basically a single-round Sequential Runoff. However, it is so bad that even the totally non-mathematical Robert's Rules 12th Edition says that it should not be used. Go to Section 45.63 and read through to 45.69. IRV is described though RR-12 calls it "preference voting".
BTW, because of a nasty feature of IRV called "non-monotonicity" (I call it the "rank-reversal paradox" in the video) the optimal voter strategy is actually to vote for only one candidate. Australia, which adopted this system well over a century ago, mandates that EVERY candidate be ranked else the ballot is said to be "spoiled" and it thrown out.
the optimal voter strategy is actually to vote for only one candidate.
Yep. Then it is never 'revealed' when a loser is removed. It's always counted.
Correct. As you rightly note, the discard algorithm used by IRV is actually throwing away legitimate votes. Discard can and does manifest from time to time as the rank-reversal problem.
which can, or can not, be a proper reflection of the voter's preference. "I would never cast a vote for that person" is a valid preference, although in some marginal edge cases it can result in a rank reversal.
Rank reversal or non-monotonicity, as I show in the video, can actually cause a candidate who the voter does not like and who may be ranked last (in the Australian system, every candidate MUST be ranked) to win. Non-monotonicity alone should disqualify IRV. This was an argument Brams and others have made. I think when voters understand it they would agree. I personally consider throwing away legitimate votes is more serious because it violates state voter intent laws that most states now have in the wake of Bush v Gore. There is also established constitutional precedent that every legitimate vote be counted as well as the explicit language of Section 2 of the 14th on citizens' rights to not have their right to vote denied or abridged in any way.
I like where you are coming from, so I am going to try and throw you a bone. I tried watching your video and it is almost indecipherable. First, you flash up giant slides of text on a wall, that are almost impossible to read...then talk to them for 5 seconds, and turn the slide off. If you are going to use slides, either have a few bullets or pictures that reinforce what you are saying (preferred) or leave the wall of text up there and read it to me (not preferred). The worst thing you can do is make me try and read a slide while you are saying something separate.
You do that again when you briefly show a slide about satanic californians...I couldn't get two lines in before you are moving on, and never once talking to it.
And I'm afraid that your explanation of Round Robin voting, starting at 8:43, is not clear at all. Let's start with your vote tallies. You leave off the third choice because "it's obvious that the third candidate is the third choice".
Your table isn't labeled. It should have the rows labeled as "Victors" and the columns labeled as "Losers".
You flash Voter 1's preference (1. A; 2. C) on the screen and then suddenly there are 3 1s in the table. Why? You don't explain the mechanic in action.
This is made worse because, again, you left off the 3rd rank. So the viewer is left trying to figure out how that third 1 got onto the matrix.
Imagine if instead, you paused for 20 seconds to give the following statement:
Here we have Voter 1's preferences- A, C and then B. In this system of voting, we break that into 3 head-to-head competitions.
(Slide highlights these letters as you explain it)
In Match one, A, the first choice, beats C, the second choice.
For match two, A also beats the third choice, B.
And finally, we know that 2nd choice, C, beats 3rd choice B.
So now we have results of three matches: A beats C, A beats B, and C beats B.
**Slide now has the Voter 1 ranks, and beneath that, the decomposition into matches. And now the Matrix appears (The Matrix is LABELED)**
So we now look at this matrix where all the potential match results are listed, victors on the rows, and the candidate they beat on the columns. We tally one point for each combination that they win.
** Now the slide shows the three 1's in their particular spot***
And then we can do this for each vote.
Do you see how that would make your presentation a little more aproachable?
(And I didn't even get into the scoring methodology).
Mr. Hagar's presentation style aside, the challenges of more deeply Condorcet-compliant systems is a depth of complexity. They work OK for smaller groups like boards or associations. Attempting to implement them at municipality+ scale is *hugely* problematic.
RCV does have some edge conditions that are non-Condorcet-compliant. They're far less problematic if voters don't do bonkers stuff, and aren't problematic if the race isn't razor's-edge narrow. And RCV has the huge benefit of being easy to explain and illustrate, and very straightforward for voter participation.
So.. Mr. Hagar's presentation aside, the alternatives are very complex, and the discussion of differences between the alternatives is pretty abstract.
Not really. There is a big advantage of Condorcet in a municipal, district or statewide election precisely because, as I show, counts can be done at the precinct level. Precinct totals that then be made available up to the district and added there and so on. I talk about the ability to "exploit parallelism". As I explain in the video, you CANNOT take individual precinct results and add them together, thanks to the discard algorithm. Ballots from the lowest levels must all be physically transported to a central location to be counted - after all, if you use machines you can't have any internet connection and otherwise, you'll still need to physically transport. IRV will always cost vastly more time than Condorcet. ALWAYS.
I have already acknowledge the production constraints under which I operated and how adjustments were made. It is fair game to say that the presenter bears much of the responsibility if the audience doesn't understand. However, just a tiny bit of effort would have revealed the nightmare that is IRV. The requirement that there can be no counting at all until the ballots are a central location I explicitly stated. If I'd had, say, $20K or $30K and, say, a full week to put the thing together, it would have been better.
Still, I presented the evidence. I'm surprised you drew exactly the opposite conclusion but, so it goes.
Well, it is possible to pause at any point as long as you like on any particular slide. Actually, the room didn't have projection facilities enabled so the relevant slides were added later. One works with what one has. But, again, if you were confused, just look at the slide as long as you need.
I have no clue about "satanic Californians". There are several instances with particular phrases are emphasized. One is "System is Everything". Maybe that was it.
Yes, it is mathematically obvious and I say as much. I later use an example in which the third choice is explicit and say that Australia requires this - people might have to get used to this. Again, the ability to pause and rewind gives you plenty of opportunity. I was trying to cover a lot of material in a short period of time. But, the nice thing about a video is that the viewer has control.
Actually, it is C beats A head-to-head in that two-person example. C also beats B in that two person example. Put all three together and in plurality A wins and in a runoff B wins. Pretty clear and if you were confuse, rewind. I'm not saying that, under the limitations this was an ideal presentation. I wish I had a proper studio but that just wasn't possible. Now, you could read a math-heavy text on Social Choice. Not only does almost no one do that, in my investigations over the years, it is almost never taught, even in Grad School.
Again, regarding the matrix, when I'm giving the actual slide show, it is easy for me to take my time. Because the slide show couldn't be properly paused due to production limitations, the animation runs continuously while I'm talking. Again, if you are having problems, you have to pause. You could even rewind.
Whether you love or hate Sarah Palin, I think we can all agree from that picture that she hasn't aged all that well. Of, that is the worst possible picture.
She isn't getting any younger - but, not bad at all for her age!
As an Alaskan voter I have to say that having to pick one candidate out of 48 was tough. First I eliminated all 16 candidates from the Treason Party, but then I still had 32 choices. I Googled the one of that 32 whom I personally knew, but he did not have a web-site up, so I moved on to the two Libertarian candidates. After Googling both of them I picked the one who was pro choice, voted, signed my ballot, had to find a second person to sign my ballot, and mailed it in. The only easy part of the process was not having to find a stamp for it, since the ballot was pre-paid.
Why not both?
actually... AK's system is motivated by two things: 1) the same initiative included a lot of dark-money disclosure - Alaskans are sick of out-of-state big money driving elections, and 2) the AK GOP has driven elections, through their primary control, across AK - "primarying from the right" is perceived poorly by AK's majority-non-affiliated voters.
The second element - party control of election outcomes through primaries - is the same reason CA went to jungle primaries. In CA, in many places, there were zero competitive alternatives to whoever the Democratic Party put on the ballot. General election voters were looking for some alternatives.
Yes, and out of ignorance picked the wrong one. What I have proposed as one of four GOP candidates for Indiana SoS (to be decided at the June 18th Convention) is that the proper way to do things is to sent up an independent commission to evaluate ranked voting systems. Since I could be accused of bias, I can't be involved in it. Obtaining funding for this commission might be a stumbling block so I have pledged to put my entire 4-year, after tax salary (about 1/3 of a million bucks) into something like an escrow account for the sole purpose of providing whatever additional funding is needed for the commission. So, I ain't gonna take any money. Period. All I care about is having a secure voting process that uses the best possible voting system. While it might take up to four years (I will only serve one term) to complete the study, I'm hoping to see it done by the end of 2024, in time to go to the beginning of the 2025 legislative session.