Ranked Choice: What to Consider at the Polls

Alaska voters will be asked whether they would like to repeal the ranked choice system of voting in November. Currently, we rank candidates in order of our preference in the general election instead of choosing just one candidate. Readers Charlotte Henson, Jan Miller, and Gay Wellman requested an explanation about the options. I had hoped to present something simple, but there truly is a lot to consider. 

The Ballot Question

Yes vs no questions about keeping or repealing something can get a bit confusing. 

A “no” vote keeps ranked choice general elections, open primaries, and a campaign finance provision requiring entities contributing more than $2,000 to disclose their true donor sources.

A “yes” win will: eliminate both the top-four primaries and ranked-choice voting general elections in Alaska, establish a partisan primary system, and eliminate the campaign finance provisions described above. 

Voters must choose whether to keep or repeal the package of three things all together. It’s not a la carte. 

The Primaries 

Currently, everyone who shows up at the primary gets the same ballot. Every candidate is on the ballot. The top four candidates continue on to the general election. 

A “yes” vote would return Alaska to a partisan primary system. All the Republican candidates (for example) would appear on the Republican ballot. According to Ballotpedia, each party could choose whether to hold a closed primary for an election. In the Republican example, only registered Republicans would vote for a Republican candidate if the party chooses a closed primary. 

The organization “Protect Alaska’s Elections,” which is advocating for a “no” vote, asserts the open primary system protects the votes of Alaskans unaffiliated with a major party. If both major parties decide to hold closed primaries, independent voters would not be able to vote in either.

National PAC Unite America states on their website that open primaries reward candidates with broader appeal, and believe that is positive. They assert that having candidates selected only by primary voters in their own party encourages candidates to play to the hard core members of their party. 

If you are a hard core member of Alaska’s dominant party, you might prefer a system that rewards candidates aligned with party purists. The petition to repeal ranked choice voting was submitted by staunch conservatives: Ken McCarty, Judy Eledge, and Bernadette Wilson. Conservative gubernatorial candidate Shelley Hughes is another outspoken opponent of ranked choice. 

Ranked choice opponents assert parties should have a say in vetting who runs for office, and agree with the system where the candidate is chosen by voters from their own party. Republican ranked choice opponents also assert if the two-party system is not preeminent in elections, it is too easy for candidates to run as “independent,” when closer inspection would reveal they are closely aligned with Democratic party ideology and funding. 

In campaign statements, Hughes asserted the open primary system creates a ballot with too many candidates for voters to thoroughly research. In the upcoming primary, Alaskans will have to choose from 17 candidates running for governor, 15 for Senate and another 15 for the House of Representatives.

Ranked choice advocates, including Unite America, look at this same field and say it is a good thing. They believe widening the field encourages candidates with a broader range of beliefs, ideas, and backgrounds to run for office. They also believe it is good for the dominant parties to have less control over elections. 

The General Election

The Alaska Division of Elections website explains, in the general election, “Voters rank their choices in order of preference. Votes are counted in rounds. The Division counts all first choices. If a candidate gets 50% + one vote in Round One, that candidate wins and the counting stops.”

“If not, counting goes to Round Two. The candidate with the fewest votes gets eliminated. If you voted for that candidate, your vote goes to your next choice, and you still have a say in who wins. If your first-choice candidate was not eliminated, your vote stays with them. Votes are counted again.”

“This keeps happening in rounds until two candidates are left and the one with the most votes wins.”

A video on the division website also explains the process at “https://www.elections.alaska.gov/election-information/#RankedChoice”

Repeal Now, an organization chaired by Eledge, argues that voters shouldn’t need a “tutorial” on how their votes are processed. They assert the system is confusing, and might discourage people from voting at all. 

Because second and third choice votes are counted, a candidate who initially receives fewer first choice votes can still win on the strength of their second (or even third) choice votes. Ranked choice advocates say this is positive because it rewards candidates with broader appeal. Opponents say this is negative because the person with the most first choice votes should win, and voters should just pick their first choice. 

Advocates for ranked choice, including Unite America, believe ranked choice can increase participation by giving voters the opportunity to cast a vote for a candidate they truly care about, but who they don’t think can win in the partisan system. They speculate these voters might not go to the polls at all if forced to choose between two candidates they dislike. 

According to the Alaska Division of Elections, in 2016, the last non-Covid, non-ranked choice general election, Copper Center’s turnout was 26.86%, Kenny Lake’s was 40.76%, Gakona’s was 35.71%, and Glennallen’s was 27.79%. 

In 2024, with ranked choice, Copper Center’s turnout was 31.86%, Kenny Lake 33.76%, Gakona 37.16%, and Glennallen 33.40%. 

Both sides have stated their way is better for turnout. The numbers don’t present evidence for ranked choice either improving or discouraging voter turnout in our area.

Protect Alaska’s Elections states on its website that they believe open primaries and ranked choice voting contributed to “cross partisan collaboration” by the legislature. They credit the system with bringing about a legislature that succeeded in passing an increase to the Base Student Allocation. Was this really the key factor, or just one of many? 

Peltola’s Controversial Win

Mary Peltola’s win in the special election to replace the late Don Young in the House of Representatives has been analyzed closely as a test of the ranked choice system. Peltola received more first place votes than either other candidate. 40.2% of the first place votes went to Peltola, 31.27% to Sarah Palin, and 28.53% to Nick Begich. 

Begich, with the fewest first place votes, was eliminated. People who chose Begich as their first choice had their second choice votes counted. 15,467 second choice votes went to Peltola, and 27,053 to Palin. That was enough to give more than 50% to Peltola, who was declared the winner. 

A paper by mathematician Jeanne Clelland explains two issues she asserts demonstrate flaws with this result. She explained, “While voters who ranked Begich first had the opportunity to vote for their second-place candidate in Round Two, voters who ranked Palin or Peltola first never had their second-place vote considered. In particular, voters who were assured that they could safely rank Palin first and still have their second-place vote for Begich counted if Palin were eliminated never got to express their support for Begich.”

Of the three candidates, Begich won the fewest first place votes but the most second place votes. Post election analysis strongly suggested that in a head to head, partisan election, Begich would have won. 

Furthermore, ballots from Begich voters who did not choose a second choice were “exhausted” and eliminated. Clelland’s analysis states, “Peltola’s final vote count of 91,266 represented 51.48% of votes that were still active in Round Two, but this statistic fails to take into account that 11,290 ballots from Round One were exhausted and not counted in Round Two. Peltola’s 91,266 votes represent only 48.40% of the 188,582 ballots that were active in Round One.”

Was this a “squishy” election result? It is really up to the voters to decide, and it is hard for voters’ judgement not to be clouded by whether their preferred candidate won or lost. 

This result also refutes the idea that ranked choice rewards the middle, although that also depends on where you think the middle is. Clelland considered Begich the middle of the 2022 election, between Palin and Peltola. 

Misinformation about the 2024 Election

Repeal Now states on its website YesEndRCV.com that in 2024, “thousands of votes were invalidated – and changed the outcome of the election,” and implies ranked choice voting was the reason. According to the Division of Elections, 1304 absentee ballots were rejected, and it is true that could have had an effect on close races in some districts. 

However, the reasons for the ballot rejection listed in an Alaska Public Media report have nothing to do with ranked choice. The most common was “improper witnessing,” due to the signature requirement on absentee ballots. Others were postmarked late, some had missing or incorrect voter identifying information, and twelve ballots were “forwarded to the Department of Law.” 

An additional 352 question ballots were rejected- these again have nothing to do with ranked choice. Question ballots have to do with issues such as a voter’s name not being on the precinct register, lack of ID, address changes, voters arriving at the polls who already received a ballot in the mail, or other issues that come up before a voter even sees a ballot. 

Special Interests and Billionaires vs Billionaires

Both Protect Alaska’s Elections and Repeal Now say that if you go their way, you’ll be going against “special interest groups” and “outside funding.” Both organizations are, thanks to the current requirements, required to disclose where their funding comes from. 

Repeal Now’s major contributors include the Aurora Action Network, a PAC whose major funding comes from conservative billionaire Jeff Yass. The Aurora Action Network is active in opposing campaign finance disclosure rules. Repeal Now also has major funding from locally based entities: Lot, Inc based in Palmer and Kyle Bates, based in Anchorage. 

No on 2’s major contributors include the multimillion dollar PAC Unite America, Seattle Based SEIU Ballot Fund, and Las Vegas based Working Americans Building a Stronger America. Unite America’s largest donors are billionaire supporters of left-leaning causes and the Democratic party. 

Those who want to repeal ranked choice state that they are up against multimillion dollar campaigns from outside, left-wing organizations. 

Those who want to retain ranked choice state that without the campaign finance disclosure provisions, Alaskans will be more vulnerable to misleading campaigns by for profit companies, political interests, or other groups concealing the source of their funding. 

The current campaign finance provisions are probably something most readers, left or right, would get behind. However, voters can not pick and choose whether to keep the campaign finance disclosure provision while rejecting ranked choice. 

The best way to make sure all Alaskans are represented would come not from which method we use to vote but from how many of us do it.