Alaska Keeps Ranked Choice Voting by Razor-Thin Margin
With 50.1 percent of the final tally, Alaskans voted to preserve a system that allows voters more choice in how they vote, and who they vote for.

More than two weeks after polls closed, it's official: By the narrowest of margins, Alaska will keep its ranked choice voting (RCV) system.
In 2020, Alaskan voters passed Ballot Measure 2, which replaced the state's traditional voting system with RCV. The measure passed narrowly, with just 50.6 percent voting in favor.
Under RCV, instead of choosing one candidate per position, voters rank all candidates in order of preference. If one candidate gets more than 50 percent, then he or she wins. But if no candidate gets a majority, then the lowest performer is eliminated, and all of their ballots are redistributed to the candidates picked second. This process repeats until one candidate passes 50 percent. Alaska Ballot Measure 2 replaced party primaries with blanket primaries, and it implemented a top-four general election ballot where voters would rank the top four primary competitors in order of preference.
From the first time it was used, in a 2022 special election to fill the state's sole congressional seat, Alaska's RCV system came under fire from Republicans: Former Gov. Sarah Palin, a candidate in that election, said RCV constitutes "voter suppression" and "results in a lack of voter enthusiasm because it's so weird." When Palin lost to Democrat Mary Peltola on a second-round tally, Sen. Tom Cotton (R–Ark.) called RCV "a scam to rig elections," elaborating that "60% of Alaska voters voted for a Republican, but thanks to a convoluted process and ballot exhaustion—which disenfranchises voters—a Democrat 'won.'"
Importantly, 60 percent of Alaska voters did vote for a Republican, but not the same one: Palin captured 31.2 percent of votes and Nick Begich III won 28.5 percent, while Peltola got 40.2 percent; Begich was eliminated, but only half of his voters picked Palin as their second choice, with around 30 percent picking Peltola and 21 percent picking no second choice. Peltola, as a result, won the seat with 51.5 percent on the final tally.
This year, another initiative on Alaska ballots—incidentally, also titled Ballot Measure 2—would repeal the previous measure, reestablishing party primaries and first-past-the-post general elections. Palin was the first to sign the petition to get a repeal on the ballot, in November 2022—just days after losing a second race against Peltola.
With only a fraction of votes still uncounted, the Associated Press projects that Ballot Measure 2 has been defeated, keeping Alaska's RCV system intact, by a whisker: 49.9 percent to 50.1 percent.
While the margins may have been razor-thin, the results offer some encouragement to RCV supporters: Several other states had RCV proposals on the ballot this year, and with the exception of Washington, D.C., they all failed.
Incidentally, Alaska voters also undercut Republicans' claims that RCV is used to rig elections: Begich, the last-place finisher in 2022, unseated Peltola to become the state's newest representative in the U.S. Congress.
Begich received 48.6 percent of the first-round vote to Peltola's 46.4 percent. When the fourth- and third-place finishers were eliminated, and their ballots were reallocated, Begich prevailed with 51.3 percent of the final tally, while Peltola came in at 48.7 percent. Unlike in 2022, when around half of Begich's voters declined to pick Palin as their second choice, Begich gained around 5,000 additional votes in subsequent rounds, compared to around 4,000 for Peltola.
Rather than proving RCV is "a scam to rig elections," the results lend further proof to the theory that Palin was simply a bad candidate.
"In 2022…independent-minded Alaska voters elected a conservative Republican governor, moderate Republican senator, and moderate Democratic congresswoman in their first use of RCV. This year, they elected a Republican congressman—a reminder that the reform is completely party-neutral," Meredith Sumpter, president and CEO of FairVote, a nonprofit that supports RCV, said in a statement. "We always knew this would be a close vote in this highly polarized environment, but the takeaway is clear. For the second time in four years, Alaska voters have voted for better elections."
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
A voter can vote for whomever they want. One resident adult, one vote. Candidate with the most wins. Not > 1 votes.
No one gets "extra votes" in an RCV system. Instead, some voters choose not to use all of the votes that they are entitled to use. That is their choice. It is no different than if those same voters chose to stay home for a runoff election.
So can we please quit it with the false narrative of RCV somehow granting people extra votes?
How is it not extra votes if you want only one candidate and not a "second place"? You may not like Chumby's thought, but it is indeed extra in that case.
If a voter chooses to omit a second place vote, then that is equivalent to a voter choosing to skip a runoff election. In that case, the voters who did choose to vote in a runoff election didn't get "extra votes", they chose to participate in an election that the first voter did not.
RCV is nothing more than “instant runoff”. It’s no different than deciding that you “want only one candidate” and stay home for the run-off race.
RCV is an attempt to run elections faster and cheaper, which never correlate with better.
If you want a jungle election, for a primary or the general, then hold multiple elections.
Why is it better to hold multiple runoff elections?
Look, you want robust election security, right? Which necessarily means making the process of voting more cumbersome, when voters have to show up in person (no more no-excuse absentee ballots, right? no more ballot dropboxes, right?) and must show ID, and must vote in a reduced window of time (shorter window for early voting, right?). Now some or all of these ideas might be terrific ideas for making voting more secure, I for one support voter ID, but they all nevertheless making voting more cumbersome. And now you want to force voters to go through this more cumbersome voting process multiple times?
Plus, the more times an election is run, the more chances there are for voting ‘shenanigans’ that you wouldn’t approve of. Like long-dead Venezuelan dictators hacking into voting machines. Right?
You can’t really have it both ways – make it more difficult to vote, AND demand that they vote multiple times. If you do, it will just mean more and more people will check out of the system and just not show up to vote at all.
First of all, given well-earned skepticism about universal suffrage, we might be better off if fewer people voted.
Second, running an election in the old-school way (in-person with ID and paper records) provides far fewer opportunities for shenanigans that behind-the-scenes tabulations of multiple counts from the same ballots.
Third, multiple elections (in the jungle format) allows people to choose their preferred candidate in a simple, direct way. And believe it or not, our preferences can change if the set of choices also changes.
First of all, given well-earned skepticism about universal suffrage, we might be better off if fewer people voted.
No. A government is unjust if it does not have the support of the governed. When the number of legally eligible voters shrinks, that is when you get revolutions.
Second, running an election in the old-school way (in-person with ID and paper records) provides far fewer opportunities for shenanigans that behind-the-scenes tabulations of multiple counts from the same ballots.
There is no reason that tabulation of RCV ballots can't be in the open as well. In fact I would advocate for it. You want paper RCV ballots? That's fine. So that is a non-concern.
Third, multiple elections (in the jungle format) allows people to choose their preferred candidate in a simple, direct way.
It isn't all that hard. It is no harder than filling out any number of countless online surveys that everyone has filled out from time to time.
And believe it or not, our preferences can change if the set of choices also changes.
Sure, I think this is one of the more valid criticisms of RCV. In the time between non-RCV runoff elections, people might change their minds in ways that they wouldn't if they had to vote all at once on an RCV ballot. But the opposite concern is also true: in the time between non-RCV runoff elections, unscrupulous partisans might try to manipulate the vote in ways that would cast doubt on the legitimacy of the overall result, in ways that they wouldn't have the opportunity to do if everyone voted all at once on an RCV ballot.
I can see a potential "hybrid" approach: use RCV to narrow down the field to 2 candidates, and then have a separate traditional runoff between only the final 2 candidates. That might be a way to try to accommodate all sides.
But there are many benefits to RCV, most notably:
1. It includes the voices of minor parties, as voters more aligned with their views would be more inclined to vote for them without feeling like they are 'spoilers'.
2. It gets more voters engaged when they feel like their genuine voices is heard, and they don't feel forced to vote for 'the lesser of two evils'. And unlike you, I don't think it is necessarily a negative when more people vote.
3. It guarantees that the eventual winner does have some measure of genuine majority support, and not merely a plurality winner who wins accidentally because a majority coalition fractured the vote on their side.
4. It does save time and resources.
A government is unjust if it does not have the support of the governed.
That is a false choice. It asserts that you are the GOVERNED regardless of whether you 'consent' or 'not'. The means by which you will be deemed to 'consent' will be determined by the governors. As will the determination of whether you have consented or not. As will the information that is provided to you to 'consent'. You will have no role of governance except to periodically 'consent' to what is happening to/at you.
The first use of the concept was Tertullian - It is not enough that a law is just, nor that the judge should be convinced of its justice; those from whom obedience is expected should have that conviction too. His framing obviously makes 'expected obedience' the goal.
But where is all the political thinking earlier than Tertullian - like Plato or Aristotle? Where self-governance or participating in one's own governance as a citizen are important values? Where a polity is valid/legitimate - when a citizen's militia shows up to defend it when it is under threat?
No. A government is unjust if it does not have the support of the governed. When the number of legally eligible voters shrinks, that is when you get revolutions.
That wasn't a problem in the early US, when voter participation was abysmal.
And beyond this, the future belongs to those that show up. So if only 1% of all people vote, that is all that matters.
"Why is it better to hold multiple runoff elections?"
Because the vast majority of voters don't actually HAVE well ordered preferences between candidates below their top pick. Politics just isn't important enough to most people for them to invest that much thought into candidates they don't favor.
Holding a runoff election allows the voters time to actually generate preferences for the new lineup, once it's down to a binary choice between the top two.
I’m in a RCV state you fat piece of fucking shit and some can vote for multiple candidates for one office and others just vote for one person.
One resident adult, one vote.
If you want fewer false narratives in the comments section, delete your account.
some can vote for multiple candidates for one office and others just vote for one person.
What I have described is indeed how RCV works. So perhaps you need to provide more detail on whatever specific election you are referring to so that we all can understand the precise nature of your complaint.
A voter leaving a second-choice option blank is not "disenfranchised", and voters who do choose to completely fill out their ballot, with all rankings, don't get "extra votes", they got all the votes that they were entitled to get.
Under RCV, one voter can vote for multiple candidates for a single office in a single election where others only vote for one candidate.
One resident adult, one vote. Highest vote count wins.
End of story.
Let me fix that for you:
Under RCV, one voter can vote for multiple candidates for a single office in a single election where others choose to vote for only one candidate when they had the opportunity to vote for multiple candidates if they so chose.
Tell us, in a non-RCV runoff election, if Voter A chooses to vote but Voter B chooses not to vote, does Voter A get "extra votes"? Is Voter B "disenfranchised"? Is this situation unfair?
One resident adult, one vote. Highest vote count wins. Why need a runoff?
Because the 'highest vote count' may not represent a majority of support from the voters. If there are 10 candidates who have roughly equal support, why should the candidate which received 10.1% support win over the one who received 9.9% support? They are both very unrepresentative of the electorate at large. The winning candidate ought to be one that can form at a minimum a temporary majority coalition in his/her support.
Runoffs answer the "wasted vote" problem, as well as the problem of extra candidates fracturing a would-be majority into losing minorities.
And? The candidate wins because that person has the most votes.
Which election was that?
One R running against 6 Ds
Neither gets 50.1% --but the Ds get a second bite at the apple with every voter who didn't hit the main winner on the first round.
Ds get extra votes.
Which is exactly what RCV supporters are angling for.
In Alaska they're outnumbered. There are more Rs than Ds--the only way they can win is if Ds get extra votes.
No, that's an artifact of jungle primaries, not RCV.
But RCV makes it more confusing.
One R running against 6 Ds
Neither gets 50.1% –but the Ds get a second bite at the apple with every voter who didn’t hit the main winner on the first round.
Okay, so if no one gets 50.1% in the first round, one of two things must be true:
1. If the R candidate has the lowest vote total after the first round, and will therefore be eliminated for the second and subsequent rounds, then this candidate had so little support, there is no possible way that candidate would have won the election, under any realistic voting system.
2. If the R candidate did NOT have the lowest vote total after the first round, and is therefore not eliminated for the second round, then all the voters who voted for the R candidate in the first round carry over into the second round. So the voters who voted for the R candidate keep their preference.
Ds get extra votes.
Which is exactly what RCV supporters are angling for.
But it would work the exact same way if it was one D candidate running against 6 R candidates. So it is not rigged in favor of any particular party.
Congratulations. You have stated how traditional systems work. You have not provided any evidence for why it's superior to RCV.
AFAICT arguments against RCV boil down to
a) it's a change, and I don't like change
b) it's too complicated for my small brain
c) I believe that it favors Democrats so I'm opposed to it.
In St. Louis, RCV and 'Jungle Primaries' gave us a choice between 'Progressive Democrat' and 'Very Progressive Democrat'.
Jungle primaries are what gave you that problem, not RCV.
But RCV makes it more confusing.
RCV is mostly voted in in order to lead to jungle primaries
People in Alaska are crazy. More news at 11.
Republicans in Alaska clearly believe that Palin is crazy, they believe that she's a loony second choice, a Democrat is better. She completes with Kamala in the word salad Olympics.
I don’t suppose it matters much in contrast to Blue States making No-ID ballot stuffing legal under some delusion of “Easy” instead of “Legitimate” (contradictions).
Did they use RCV to decide about RCV?
No? I mean, I think RCV only is meaningful when there are more than two choices on the ballot.
Humor escapes the dull witted.
Even beyond humor, we could craft multiple choices to skew the results. For example:
Should we employ RCV?
A - Yes
B - No, because it seems complicated
C - No, I don't want to vote in an RV
D - No, Trump is crazy
E - No, Trump is my hero
Now list your 3 choices, in order of preference.
So RCV passed (and remained) in just about the narrowest possible Yes-No election? No options for - none of the above, this is a scam, I am a robot, I already voted, etc?
to preserve a system that allows voters more choice in how they vote
You can keep saying it until you’re blue in the face, but that will never ever be a true statement about RCV.
All it does is take their choices away. That’s the truly insidious, vehemently anti-American part of it. It lies to your face about giving you “more choice,” but what it really does is steal it from you.
It’s the electoral version of “you will eat the bugs, live in the pod, own nothing, and be happy.”
Anybody who supports – let alone votes – for RCV should have their citizenship stripped and be deported. (We’ll let them rank choice vote where they get deported to, lmao.) They are flat out telegraphic – by ignorance or intent – how much they truly despise the United States of America.
All it does is take their choices away. That’s the truly insidious, vehemently anti-American part of it. It lies to your face about giving you “more choice,” but what it really does is steal it from you.
RCV will cause your laundry colours to run!
RCV will increase your fuel consumption!
RCV has been shown to cause sterility in rats!
What kind of a buffoon thinks that giving you more than one choice is a restriction of choice compared to the single choice you have under a traditional system?
Well my friend, let's answer your question with a simple experiment.
I have five jars. Assume you know what's in all of them (it's not important what it is). We'll call them Red Jar, Blue Jar, Yellow Jar, Orange Jar, and Purple Jar.
Which jar do you want, and why?
RCV is simple way to flip red states blue. The goal is to get enough states friendly to progressive Constitution amendments.
Really, really stupid people do not understand the purpose of primaries. Nor do they understand how RCV allows candidate stacking.
I was proud that Idaho rejected this RCV bullshlt.
So, RCV and the jungle primary barely passed in the first place, and with some experience, support for it has declined. I expect that given another election cycle or two, repeal will be successful.
"Alaska Keeps Ranked Choice Voting by Razor-Thin Margin
With 50.1 percent of the final tally, Alaskans voted to preserve a system that allows voters more choice in how they vote, and who they vote for."
How's that for scary?
It appears 49.99% of Alaskans do not believe in freedom of choice when it comes to voting for a candidate they like.