By ALEX GIMARC
While there have been some infuriating ads run by the defenders of ranked-choice voting during the last couple months, they are ending their campaign on a real low note.
It appears their polling has ended with the notion that they need to appeal to Alaska voters with the claim that the dark-money funded, party elites who want to repeal ranked-choice voting are singularly focused on stealing liberty and freedom from voters.
Specifically, which freedom are they claiming the anti-ranked-voting crowd is stealing? According to Vote No on 2 Chair Lesil McGuire, it is the freedom to vote for any candidate we want to in a political primary.
As usual, it is difficult to prove a negative, so let’s take a look at which freedoms and liberties are actually involved. More importantly, where do those freedoms actually come from?
If you were to take a look at both the U.S. Constitution and the Alaska Constitution for the freedom to vote for any candidate you want to, those freedoms are neither specified nor enumerated. While the Tenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution does include a catch all that:
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
The Ninth Amendment has similar language:
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
The meaning of both of these is that if those rights (freedoms, liberties) are not specifically mentioned in the Constitution, then they belong to the people and the states.
This is great news for the backers of ranked-choice voting, as it is seemingly a green light to run around dispensing freedoms at the wave of their dark-money funded, Outside hands.
But there is a fly in the ointment, not uncommon when the left starts doling out so-called freedoms and liberties. And that fly in the ointment is a very real provision of the First Amendment, which states the following:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
The U.S. Supreme Court, via a series of opinions over the last century, determined that a freedom of association is “… and indispensable means of preserving” the enumerated First Amendment freedoms. This right of association applies to “… speech, assembly, petition for the redress of grievances, and the exercise of religion.”
And what is a political party, other than a formal association created to support speech, assembly, and petitioning the redress of grievances?
It would appear that the ability of a political party to organize, select its own candidates, and participate in elections is a fundamental part of our First Amendment rights.
No so, according to the “No on Prop 2” crowd. Not so, according to the black-robed political hacks masquerading as members of the Alaska Supreme Court. Not so, according to the “No on Prop 2” dark-money backers.
We are in a position we often are arguing with the left-over freedoms and rights, where their newly created, shiny, sexy, media celebrated freedoms, liberties and rights (right to privacy, right to an abortion) quickly are elevated over pre-existing, enumerated freedoms, liberties and rights, which are usually discarded out of hand like the Alaska Supremes did to the freedom of association here in Alaska.
If the right to select any candidate you want existed in either the U.S. or Alaska Constitution, we would be able to actually find it, written down in actual words. That it doesn’t should tell us everything we want to know about the $7.8 million fraud the No on 2 campaign and its dark money outside backers are committing on the voters of Alaska.
If ranked-choice voting is such a good thing, why do its supporters need to commit fraud to defend it?
Alex Gimarc lives in Anchorage since retiring from the military in 1997. His interests include science and technology, environment, energy, economics, military affairs, fishing and disabilities policies. His weekly column “Interesting Items” is a summary of news stories with substantive Alaska-themed topics. He was a small business owner and Information Technology professional.
RVC didn’t take anything away. The people of Alaska via voting gave it away.
…. … through false advertising and deceipt, MA. Yes, the voters can be fooled……and or, brainwashed.
Rank Choice Voting defenders are desperate for control of our voting system. Their campaign ads using members of American armed services is disgusting and repulsive. Very few armed forces members will be snookered by this left-wing campaign. Reason:
Those that wear the uniform fought against communism, totalitarianism, and the left-wing agenda entrenched under “globalism,” the principles that RCV is attempting to uphold through the elective process. Military people don’t vote for a system that puts themselves and their families directly into harms way.
Which is why the current Leftists cabal has been doing everything they can to facilitate the infiltration of our Armed Services ranks with like-minded Leftists, amongst other reasons. One of which is to have enough of a critical mass of supplicant Services members brainwashed in Leftist ideology to the point that they would not think twice when ordered to use their resources against the US citizenry. Infiltrating the Armed Services is almost as important as destroying the 2nd Amendment. In fact, I would say the two actions go hand-in-hand according to the Leftists’ playbook. It’s a slow game and a never-ending battle to thwart this sinister freedom destroying activity.
This may apply to members of law enforcement too?
Well said.
As much as the evil is pushing to save their precious RCV, it is going to be interesting to see what the election results are on ballot measure 2. Is the evil going to cheat and make the numbers look higher, like the majority prefer to keep RCV? Maybe so. There were a lot of people duped in 2020, so the small margin is hard for people to explain without the deep dive into the data. BUT, this time, polling is showing that there are more that want RCV gone then those who want it. How many “sleepers” will the evil pay to go out and vote? Are the machines going to help make the steal to keep RCV? Going to be an interesting election.
Don’t be manipulated by dark money working to confuse. Vote to rid us of RCV. Vote YES on 2.
The Left ALWAYS accuses conservatives of doing exactly what they have done, are doing or are planning to do. ALWAYS.
Look at the amount of time and money spent trying to explain how great RCV is.
The old way one vote one winner has worked just fine.
VOTE YES on 2
Dunleavy used dark money from his brother to become Governor. When you are complaining, you are losing.
Which, based on that logic, every democrat that if whining and complaining about any attempt to investigate possible voter fraud, clean up the voter rolls to remove ineligible voters, or pass laws to close security loopholes with the election, is losing.
And, every democrat that whined about Eric Hafner is losing.
Every time Frank Rast whines about anything even remotely conservative he is losing.
.
Welcome to the club Frank.
What a red herring. You guys have put this “petition of grievances” onto the ballot, haven’t you? And nobody is stopping the political parties from running their own primaries before the public one and letting everyone know who they endorse. That’s their private affair, but why should taxpayers have to pay for it? Parties aren’t mentioned in the Constitution either, and the founders were worried about them. Most taxpaying voters aren’t members of either major party. What choice do they get in primaries focused only on the parties?
You say “And what is a political party, other than a formal association created to support speech, assembly, and petitioning the redress of grievances?” I disagree. Political parties are there to promote candidates who support their policies and become part of the government, not just to whine about it. They express points of view that they then seek voter support for. They are hardly as grassroots as you imply. The choices between the major parties who have any chance of winning in our system are very constrained.
And do you really believe that the only rights people have are the ones enumerated in the founding documents? As brilliant as they were, they were human constructs full of compromises and therefore inherently limited and flawed. What a narrow view of rights.
“…but why should taxpayers have to pay for it?”
Why should the taxpayers have to pay for… well… pretty much everything the government funds?
.
Because it is a public service. All parties regardless of membership have the ability to have their own primary ballot. The Republicans had one before this steaming turd of open primaries was created, and so did the Democrats. There was a ballot measure only ballot. No one was not represented.
.
That “taxpayer” argument is the real red herring. Both, well… all parties had the same level of access to the primary ballots. Your argument is meaningless.
We’re just going to have to disagree about that (surprise!). I don’t think partisan primaries are a “public service” at all, when the majority of voters are not party aligned. If there was only one contest on the primary ballot, that would perhaps not be a big deal. You could just pick the ballot you want to vote on for that one race. But that’s not how it works. You have to pick one ballot which forces all your choices to exclude candidates from the other ballot on all races. That doesn’t serve the unaligned majority who might want to pick and choose.
The test for whether it is a public service is whether or not it benefits the majority of taxpayers? Did I read that correctly?
Which means, food stamps, Medicaid, Welfare, Bus subsidies, Pell Grants, and about whole host of other government programs are not public services, and should not be taxpayer funded. If that is your position, OK, but I doubt you will get much traction with it.
.
“…pick one ballot which forces all your choices to exclude candidates from the other ballot on all races. That doesn’t serve the unaligned majority who might want to pick and choose.”
The majority that want to pick and choose? Really, you are running with that? An unfounded assumption that every voter who registered as undeclared or independent is going to actually pick and choose from all available candidates?
.
Personal anecdotal experience here: I ask independents and undeclared voters (when I can) to tell me when the last time it was they did not vote straight party line. Curiously, they have an instance. From decades ago. And it was on the general election ballot, not the primary.
.
Reality…
A candidate aligns with a particular party because their plans/platform/policies align with that party’s platform. (With the exception of Murkowski, who went radical leftist, but refuses to change party affiliation.) And, if a voter likes that candidate’s policy, odds are they like that party’s platform. So, in the primary, the odds of them selecting from several different parties approaches zero.
Human nature just does not work the way you claim.
The various state support programs you mention are available to anyone who falls into certain specified conditions, so yes, I consider them public services and I don’t find that contradictory at all. They are not being excluded because of their political beliefs.
I have no way of knowing the statistics, and it sounds like you are going from limited anecdotal evidence, but I think people toward the center politically are quite possibly going to prefer candidates from different parties for different positions. And don’t make the unfounded assumption that I am making an unfounded assumption that *every* unaligned voter would not vote down the party line. That’s a straw man.
If you want to play the “reality” card, I think there has only ever been one write-in candidate who has ever won, and she was the only senator who ever won by write-in since 1954. So write-ins were already “little league” and not having four chances at it doesn’t seem to me like a realistic problem.
“The various state support programs you mention are available to anyone who falls into certain specified conditions, so yes, I consider them public services”
Does that “…anyone who falls into certain specified conditions…” constitute a majority of the taxpayers? if not, then your test still applies. Either it benefits the majority of taxpayers, or it should not receive taxpayer money.
.
“I have no way of knowing the statistics, and it sounds like you are going from limited anecdotal evidence,”
And, I admitted as much. But, so far, I have yet to meet someone did not vote party line in the primaries.
.
“And don’t make the unfounded assumption that I am making an unfounded assumption that *every* unaligned voter would not vote down the party line. ”
Yet, you use the unaffiliated majority as an argument against using taxpayer dollars for a statewide primary. Is it really a strawman when I do it based on your text?
.
Here is the real strawman argument:
“That doesn’t serve the unaligned majority who might want to pick and choose.”
.
Your last paragraph does not in any way dispute my statement. People vote policy, either statewide or national in the primaries. Which of the candidates will support their overall ideals. What are the odds that a Republican running for the US House will align with a Democrat candidate for Senate? (HINT: Zero.) What are the odds the Governor candidate’s policies/platform will align with the other party’s platform? (HINT: Zero).
.
I am not talking about the general election here. I am talking about the primary. If you lean left, what are the odds you will check the box for a candidate that leans right in the primary? (And vice versa.) (HINT: Zero chance)
.
My reality statement remains valid. People do not work the way you claim. A partisan primary will disenfranchise one out of 100,000 people at worst, and I am overexaggerating the impact. If there is a single person in Alaska that felt their rights were being trampled on my the partisan primary, I would be surprised.
The ratio of commenters saying that public monies shouldn’t subsidize the homeless to commenters saying that public monies shouldn’t subsidize the parties’ selection process is telling indeed. In other words, entitlement for me, not thee.
No matter how you vote on ranked choice voting you should at least understand what you are voting on. A recent opinion by Mark Sommerville was an example of having an opinion but not totally understanding RCV. RCV did not get rid of write in voting. Anyone can still run as a write in candidate. They just have to file a letter of intent prior to the general election to have their votes counted.
But, if I can rank up to four candidates under RCV, there is only one write in line.
What if I want to rank more than one write in choice?
.
I was OK with only one line when conventional voting only allowed you to vote once per office, but now that I get four votes per office, I want to be able to write in four candidates. But, there is only one write in line on the ballot.
.
See, write in candidacy is not even remotely getting a fair shake. While you are correct, it is not eliminated, it is essentially demoted to the little leagues.
Once again, a straight across line of the candidate of your choice, and YES on #2!
Oh, and a NO on #1!
Comments are closed.