Lisa Murkowski Survives, Sarah Palin Struggles Under Alaska's New Voting System
Murkowski was likely saved by the state's new open primary, while Palin may have to depend on voters who picked her as their second choice.

On Tuesday, Alaskans voted in their first regularly-scheduled primary since overhauling the state's election rules. Results will not be finalized until the end of August, but the new system is already shaking things up.
In 2020, voters approved Alaska Ballot Measure 2, which threw out the traditional party primaries, in which each political party's registered voters select a single candidate, and one person from each party competes in a general election in November. In its place, Alaskans vote on the same primary ballot, selecting from a list of every single candidate running. The four candidates with the most votes, regardless of party affiliation, all advance to the general election in November.
Then, voters choose among the final four using ranked choice voting, ranking each candidate by preference. If one candidate gets a majority of the first-choice votes, then the election is over; if not, the candidate with the least first-place votes is eliminated, and every ballot that chose the last-place finisher is recounted with the second choice counted first. This continues until one candidate has a majority of first-place votes.
Ranked choice voting obviates the need for runoff elections since voters list their second and third choices on the first and only ballot they cast. But ranked choice can also help third parties and non-traditional candidates gain traction by allowing voters to vote for longshots they align with in addition to the least objectionable major-party candidate.
Tuesday's results demonstrate how such a system can work.
Sen. Lisa Murkowski, a Republican running for her fourth term in the Senate, will advance to the general election in the fall. In a traditional election, Murkowski would have competed against the seven other Republicans running, most prominently Kelly Tshibaka, a former state official whom former President Donald Trump endorsed more than a year ago. Under the new system, though, Murkowski competed in a field of 19 candidates. Her competition included what would've been her normal Republican primary opponents, as well as all the Democrats running for Senate, a Libertarian, and others.
Preliminary results currently have Murkowski ahead of Tshibaka by about three percentage points. But there is evidence to suggest that Murkowski was helped by Alaska Democrats crossing party lines to pick her, and that in a closed Republican primary, she would have lost outright.
Last month, an Alaska Survey Research poll found that Tshibaka would win on a first-round ballot, 43-35; traditionally, that would be the end of Murkowski's Senate career. But under the new system, the votes would then continue to a second and a third round of counting, at which point Murkowski would pick up enough second- and third-choice votes to win outright, 52-48.
Meanwhile, the same process may deny former Gov. Sarah Palin a seat in the U.S. House.
After Rep. Don Young's death, Alaska held a special election primary in June to choose who would serve out the remainder of his term in the state's only House seat. Palin was one of the four candidates chosen to compete Tuesday for Young's seat, though one other finalist, independent Dan Gross, withdrew after coming in third.
Palin dominated the June vote, garnering 27 percent out of 48 candidates. But with nearly 70 percent of Tuesday's votes counted, Palin is trailing Democrat Mary Peltola by more than five points, 37-32. Nick Begich III, scion of a prominent Alaskan political family, trails with 28 percent. With nearly a third of votes still outstanding and no majority winner so far, the most immediate question will be whether Begich ultimately surpasses Palin, or whether he is eliminated in the second round of tallying.
Conventional wisdom would dictate that in a largely-Republican state, with two Republicans and a Democrat on the ballot, Palin and Begich simply split the Republican vote, and whichever of them survives will simply pick up enough votes to easily defeat Peltola.
But late-July polling showed that if Begich lost, his second-choice votes would be split evenly between Palin and Peltola. In that event, Peltola would become the first Democrat elected to statewide office in Alaska since Begich's uncle in 2008.
Supporters often credit ranked choice voting with giving a voice to third-party or nontraditional candidates. But as Reason's Scott Shackford wrote after Alaska first approved the new system, it can also "change…results if voters are too lukewarm on a frontrunner." Given Palin's unpopularity among Alaskans, that may be exactly what happened.
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
Murkowski had her cronies in the legislature set the system up because she knew it was her only chance. Ranked choice voting is a joke. Who cares who the second choice is? I don't see how it is consistent with the one man one vote principle. At its core, the one man one vote principle says that everyone gets one vote. And under ranked choice, my candidate can still lose even though they had the most votes.
"One man one vote" is not a constitutional principle. Ranked choice voting addresses issues like, what happens if candidate A and candidate B are both more popular than candidate C, but support for A and B is equally split, and so C gets in. Only motivated reasoning gets one to argue that C should be elected.
There is no perfect system for elections with more than two people running, but ranked choice voting generally gets results closer to voters' wishes than first past the post.
Under traditional voting procedures, the voters themselves are supposed to take this into account. That is, they don't just vote for the candidate who most agrees with them, but for the candidate that most likely produces the best realistic outcome.
They can't take this into account because they only have a single vote and their assessment of best realistic outcome may be imperfect. With ranked choice voting, the very thing you desire is made more likely.
… and their assessment of best realistic outcome may be imperfect.
Translation: voters don’t know what’s best.
No. They may think that voting for candidate A gives them the better chance on the basis of incorrect polling data, for example. They may know what's best but lack the information that allows them to get to that.
I am creating eighty North American nation greenbacks per-hr. to finish some web services from home. I actually have not ever thought adore it would even realisable but my friend mate got $27k solely in four weeks simply doing this best (lap-57) assignment and conjointly she convinced Maine to avail. Look further details going this web-page.
.
---------->>> https://smartpay21.pages.dev
They could take this into account if they could deliberate together and make enforceable, or at least accountable, deals on voting, the way legislators do. The inability to do so is a drawback of the secret ballot.
Plurality voting, first past the post, must appeal to those who think of voting primarily
[This smart auto-complete system produces some glitches when I post. I must be hitting the wrong key to accept the suggestion.]
Plurality voting, first past the post, must appeal to those who think of voting primarily as a personality contest, "vote for the man", rather than by ideology. Something that Americans have seemed to be particularly prone to, voting for integrity, honesty, good looks, or some such which inheres in the person and is not something that can be shared among several. Americans are notoriously suspicious of ideology. Such a contest makes the most sense in school elections or others where there are no stakes.
Other election systems try to take into account other considerations that may cause voters to be torn among choices.
I just worked part-time from my apartment for 5 weeks, but I made $30,030. I lost my former business and was soon worn out. Thank goodness, I found this employment online and I was able to start working from home right away. (res-51) This top career is achievable by everyone, and it will improve their online revenue by:.
.
After reading this article:>>> https://getjobshere34.pages.dev
"support for A and B is equally split, and so C gets in."
It would be highly unlikely for Ranked Choice to result in this happening.
It already happened in New York where the person with the 4th most 1st place votes won.
And in Oakland,Ca, where the person with the third most first place votes won, and was a terrible mayor.
Oakland has had a terrible mayor? I don’t believe you.
The first and second candidates would also likely have made terrible mayors. It's Oakland...
That hasn't been a thing since 1920. Time to join the 21st century, boomer.
'Ranked choice' voting does not violate the 'one man one vote' principle. Unless one's preferences magically change, 'ranked choice' is indistinguishable from traditional 'serial run-offs'.
The only scenario where 'ranked choice' changes the outcome is if you insist on mere plurality as the definition of "winning".
Gag me with a Silver Spoon. One man one vote meets 3D Chess on internet connected counting machines and ballot trafficking on dog sleds. I'm up against the wall and feel I have no alternative left:
Why can't we be more like France?
Pelota (D) 56,892 37.8%
Palin (R) 48,304 32.1%
Begich (R) 43,038 28.6%
The three were super close. And if Joe Lancaster (D) thinks that any of Republican Begich's votes are going to Pelota in the next round, he's delusional.
Stop trying to gaslight us, Reason.
It's Lancaster. I think you can safely bet in Vegas on delusional.
I'm still not fully understanding how this is supposed to work. If these vote totals are the same in the runoff then does the Democrat win despite Republicans getting 60%+ of the vote? Or does it go to second choices because no single candidate has better than 50%?
Because no single candidate has better than 50%, yes it goes to second choices - but only the second choices of the 28.6% of folks who picked Begich as their first choice. Those who picked Pelota and Palin as their respective first choices are assumed to still want them as their first choices.
Begich’s 28.6% get split between the others depending on their 2nd choice. Most would likely choose another R (Palin) since Begich is R.
Top 4 and then IRV/RCV?! Why is that better than a single IRV/RCV with no preliminary eliminators?
Do Alaskans think they need to see who's a contender first — private polling not being sufficient on that matter — before choosing among them?
Once the field's been narrowed to 4, I would think it very rare that IRV/RCV would produce a result different from single round plurality/first past the post.
Yeah, it's pretty silly at that point. Almost seems like a kludge to avoid the embarrassment that almost befell the NYC mayoral election.
The top 4 primary winners by plurality portion of this is a poison pill for RCV, that allows the political party to pick the candidates, and it requires voters to go to the polls twice, unlike RCV. IMHO, RCV is kryptonite to political party power, because it allows many candidates in a race, achieves a winner by majority, and voters go to the polls only once. Perhaps Alaska's experiment with this voting scheme will lead to straight RCV with one election and no party primaries.
Consider, if you get someone else to run with the same positions as your main opponent, they will split the vote from him, helping you to a top 4 win by plurality.
I think the main reason for the "top 4" is that it gives voters a reasonably small number of candidates to study for the general election.
You want me to figure out my favorite out of 20 candidates? Fine. It'll be inconvenient, but at least, as soon as I see something I don't like, I can move on. If your want me to *rank* 20 candidates?! So, I need to start distinguishing which candidates I dislike from the ones that Ioathe? Not going to happen.
Al Gross, not Dan
It appears pretty clear that Joe Lancaster doesn't like Sarah Palin, and really likes Alaska's new election process (not because it could help a Libertarian gain 5% of the vote, but because it could help Murkowski keep the Senate seat she'd have lost under the past election process and keep Palin from winning the House seat).
I think that rank choice voting is a logical response of the public to gerrymandering. If politicians are going to engineer districts that are safe for on party of another, then there is no reason that we, the public should have a chance to pick between multiple candidates of all parties and then choose them in a ranked order.
Nope.
But there is evidence to suggest that Murkowski was helped by Alaska Democrats crossing party lines to pick her, and that in a closed Republican primary, she would have lost outright.
I don't necessarily have a problem with ranked-choice voting, per se. But, to the extent it includes open primaries (and it always seems to), it's a crap system. The parties are political clubs. The primaries are supposed to be the opportunity for the membership of that club to decide who represents them as a member of that club. Otherwise, don't even have a primary and let whoever wants to run in the general election run. The idea that someone not in the club should have any role in deciding who represents that club is absurd. Should Reason include representatives of the Mises Institute on its editorial board? How about the Heritage Foundation?
There is nothing inherent in ranked-choice voting that ties it to open primaries. I agree that open primaries generate a lot more problems than they could ever possibly solve. I suspect (but cannot yet prove) that open primaries contribute to the increase polarization of the parties. I've seen nothing, however, that suggests that it taints the ranked-choice voting algorithm.
I strongly favor an open primary system in one-party States like California and Louisiana. It ensures that the most important election, the run-off between the two top vote-getters, will take place in November, when the most people will be paying attention and voting. This is better than a party primary on an obscure date, more likely to be dominated by extremists. At least one of the two run-off candidates will be interested in support from moderate and minority-party voters.
(2) Parties should, however, be encouraged to protect and advertise their brand by deciding which candidates have the right to show their party label on the ballot. Conventions might serve this purpose.
Sure, but the Mises and Heritage folks could never outnumber the DNC operatives on staff.
Reason loves it, so it's probably not good for liberty
The club can still decide to endorse one of the candidates, and, should they choose, they could even attempt to pressure any member who runs without the endorsement of the club. I am undecided at to whether a candidate ought to have the right to have the name of their preferred club appear next to their name on the ballot if the club did not endorse their candidacy (part of me would love to see the down ballot chaos if party labels weren't included at all).
However, while clubs have a right to choose their standards bearer, I see no reason why they should have the right to: 1) expect the government to grant said standards bearer ballot access in the general election without meeting the signature requirement other candidates must meet, or 2) poll club member's preference of standards bearer at taxpayer expense.
Ranked Choice Voting as it is currently implemented is a flawed system that only benefits Demoncrats.
In My More Perfect World we would still have ranked choice but only for those who are not registered with one of the two major political parties.
As has been pointed out by other posters, you had Democrats "crossing over" to try to make sure Sarah Palin was not at the top of the ranking.
Why? Because Murkowski votes with the Democrats often enough they want her back in Congress.
Like Bill immediately above, you are conflating open primaries (bad) with ranked-choice voting (good - at least in my opinion). They are entirely different concepts.
The strongest complaint I have heard against ranked-choice voting is that it delays results, giving more chance for conspiracy theories to fester. But that argument is less telling if the counting of absentee ballots is also delayed long after election day.
And when you combine them together they make one great taste.
It is not a good theoretical argument against a voting system that in practice at a particular point it benefits a particular party.
If enough Alaskans, whether GOP or Democrats, want a candidate back in Congress, what's so bad about that happening? Democracy precedes political parties.
Right, so make the elections non-partisan.
I honestly don't know how to judge the efficacy of this system. Looking at single elections doesn't seem that useful. I guess if this improves the efficacy of the government over time. Maybe whether people feel in general that they're more satisfied with this system versus the old one.
I can argue about any single case and whether a person I wanted to win won or not, but that's hard to judge against the system of voting itself.
The advantages of ranked choice over first-past-the-post include making it easier for third-party challenges, and getting outcomes which more closely reflect the wishes of the electorate.
Advocates of first-past-the-post voting tend to prefer it on partisan, rather than principled, grounds.
So, that's a statement about it "getting outcomes which more closely reflect the wishes of the electorate."
I'm asking how we test that hypothesis.
This is a good time to remind people that "primaries" are literally two private organizations conning taxpayers into paying for their selection process for elections.
Good point.
For all my advocacy here of ranked choice, note that nowhere do I claim it's perfect. For the more nerdishly inclined, this is why: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arrow%27s_impossibility_theorem
I clicked on the link about Sarah Palin’s unpopularity in Alaska..and it’s a frigging TWEET of an opinion poll?? Some actual info about current Alaskan discontent with her might be, I dunno, informative?
This is Reason magazine. Sneering at conservatives is considered data, in and of itself.
When America dies, my only consolation is that the miserable assholes who write this fake libertarian magazine will die with her.
Painfully I hope.
Person X supports Trump. Person X must be trashed in article no matter how illogical or stupid it sounds.
The execution is idiotic but the message is clear, support Trump and Reason will trash you here.
In 2020, vote fortification approved Alaska Ballot Measure 2
There.
I look forward to the day when RCV is declared unconstitutional.
One the first round, voters make an informed choice.
After that, they're in the dark.
Without knowing who was eliminated, they can't know who is even eligible anymore and may vote for someone who was eliminated in the first round.
People's choices change when they have more information.
If your 2nd choice was already eliminated, your 3rd choice is used.
"Murkowski was likely saved by the state's new open primary, while Palin may have to depend on voters who picked her as their second choice."
What an . . . interesting way to say both were saved by the state's open primary system and both are hanging on by their nails.
Yeah, this, to me has way more to do with the open-primary part of the system, not the rank choice part of the system.
Another benefit of Ranked Choice Voting is giving third parties such as the LP more influence over policy-making. Because candidates have to clear 50+% to win and voters can rank their second choices without fear of hurting their favorite, the LP would be able to offer an endorsement to one of the two major parties in exchange for a policy concession.
Indeed, this regularly occurs in Australia via "How-to-Vote" cards and was the reason the Labour Party stopped supporting the lock-out laws (that mandated bars close by a certain time).
Ranked-choice voting is a crock. Of course Reason loves it. It helps lib-tards.
Maybe instead of embracing a convoluted voting system, Libertarians could try not being a joke and actually confronting the liberal corporations whose rights they're obsessed with defending: "But we can't use state power to punish Bank of America for pushing abortion and tranny shit. That might lead to tyranny!"
If Libertarians are down with a Demon Rat who only won 38% of the vote winning in a state as red as Alaska, then they're no better than liberals. No wonder one of Reason's podcasts is titled The Fifth Column.
Preliminary results currently have Murkowski ahead of Tshibaka by about three percentage points. But there is evidence to suggest that Murkowski was helped by Alaska Democrats crossing party lines to pick her, and that in a closed Republican primary, she would have lost outright.
Duh
In its place, Alaskans vote on the same primary ballot, selecting from a list of every single candidate running. The four candidates with the most votes, regardless of party affiliation, all advance to the general election in November.
We should be accurate about what this system is, it's an open primary that also uses ranked choice.
If Mur-cow-ski survives it will be a blow to the reform possible if the red wave includes the Senate or not. Palin would be a great addition and a credit to the people of Alaska.
It would have the added silver lining of pissing off the progs.
Ranked ballots works well in selecting the least despised person to win. In countries with multiple political parties it is the only way to get a consensus that that makes the majority of voters the least unhappy. The only down side ( and this applies when there are several candidates) , the vote has to be reiterated repeatedly as each candidate with the fewest votes is eliminated and their 2nd, 3rd or 4th choices are added to candidates still in the running. My understanding is that in Australia there have been instances where
the poll workers have had to count up to 8 times until on candidate reached the magic 51%. The results of a close contest can take days to be certified. You have to wonder if there could actually have been a President Ross Perot in 1992. As a "no hoper" he actually got almost 19% of the vote. If he had been the 2nd choice for the Clinton or Bush voters who knows? Clinton won with 43% of the popular vote and Bush got 37.5% . Where would those Perot votes have gone if there was a 2nd choice, to H Bush? Highly speculative of course, maybe enough people, seeing that Perot had a chance would have made him 1st choice. couldashouldawoulda