Breaking: Repeal of ranked-choice voting petition makes ballot

By
Suzanne Downing
-
82
2968

With thousands of names to spare, Alaskans for Honest Elections has won the right to have its repeal of ranked-choice voting on the ballot this year.

The Division of Elections has certified 36,841 signatures, and those came from every House district but six, easily making the needed threshold for statewide support. The group needed to have 26,705 registered voters to sign the petition, which was handed into the Division of Elections in January.

With dark money from outside the state, ranked-choice voting was presented to Alaska as a way to clean up elections. Instead, it has only made them more muddy and less trusted, critics say.

Proponents of ranked-choice voting kept their organization alive to fight any attempts to repeal it. Alaskans for Better Elections will have massive amounts of dark money at their disposal to persuade voters to keep the system, in which there are no separate party primaries, and where general elections are done by ranking who voters prefer, followed by their second choice and third choice.

Whether the question goes on the August primary or the November general election is determined by when the Legislature adjourns.

Repeal of ranked-choice voting group turns in 42,000 signatures to Division of Elections to get on ballot
Ranked-choice voting proves a lightning rod issue in several states

82 COMMENTS

  3. Thank goodness for the efforts of those who persisted in gathering the signatures. One prays, all the singatory will turn out to vote this horrid form of subterfuge out of existence and present an example to those states contemplating instituting this subtle form of adverse voting.
    Cheers to all, and grateful thank you.

    • Tomfoolery! Yes … there will be plenty of this when the other side realizes that most Alaskans strongly oppose ranked choice voting. I helped with voting during the last election and observed an inordinate number of very confused voters and this led to more “spoiled” ballots than ever before.

      • Me too.
        Worked elections for 15 years now & the Ranked Choice had four/five times as many spoiled ballots as usual.
        But to clarify, I worked in a very liberal district for the Rank Choice election, so naturally the voters, being liberal, were confused.

        • Talk to all your family and friends about the poor political choices made with ranked choice. It was established to keep current politicians in office. Vote it out. We could save a lot of money if the legislature had the guts to repeal it by law

      • I guess reading comprehension isn’t a strong point with those people. It really isn’t confusing at all, but keep making that claim. I can only hope that those that were “confused” during the last election will be able to grasp what is being asked this time.

        • What do you mean” those people”?
          You’re talking about Alaskans. About disenfranchising people who may not be as well educated as you, but are educated enough to pay their taxes, even though they can’t understand the tax code.
          It doesn’t take a degree to see the Shell game Rank Choice Voting is. it doesn’t take his degree to see that the rules of the game changed and because they couldn’t understand them they Either tried, or did not bother to vote. Which became obvious with the lowest voter turnout. Your hope for those that were confused during the last election is just as disingenuous as those who got Rank Choice Voting passed with the promise of “getting rid of dark money”.

      • Mike Porcaro and his side kick are both snakes. They slither towards all the money they can cram into their already-fat pockets. So, mark my words, they will cut radio advertisements extolling the virtues of ranked choice voting just like they did last time.

        Don’t forget that Mike Dunleavy gave Porcaro a part-time job for which he was NOT qualified but that pays him $125,000.00 per year. This is one reason why he doesn’t show up for his childish radio program quite a lot of the time.

        • I’ve no idea if Porcaro is qualified for said job. Never seen his resume.

          Do you have evidence he throttled anti RCV ads, or did the GOP do what it always did and drop the ball?

          However, I’m also concerned he will push his baby (RCV) hard. I get the feeling he has too much invested in RCV to let it slide.

  7. Should we be rooting for the legislature to run long again this year? It seems like the general election would be more favorable to drop the rank than the primary.

      • My opinion: If RCV is gotten rid of in the primary, then we would not have to deal with it in the general election when there are so many topics to think about when voting. Better yet, legislation could REMOVE it now and we would not have to deal with it at all!

  11. My only question is if Alaskans for Better Elections have their winning ballots already printed and ready to file for another squeaker victory.

  13. Wonder how much they’ll pay the radio host to encourage people to vote against repealing RCV?

    I stopped listening to him after he worked so hard to line his pockets at the expense of Alaskans.

      • I got to say after observing the UAW strike and their moron leader insulting the consumers I’m thinking completely different about private sector unions. Public unions Im completely opposed to.

  14. Please, please, please make it the November general ballot. Ranked choice is wildly unpopular and will need unprecedented levels of ad buys to sway persuade people.

    November = presidential election + congressional election = limited advertising supply = massive advertising cost increases = once in a lifetime chance to waste democrat money at a breathtaking pace.

    Perfect storm.

  16. The one big factor in favor of repeal that none of the backers of RCV can change, is that this is no longer a theoretical discussion. Voters used the system and now have actual experience with it. Most I talked to don’t like it, find it burdensome and complicated. They don’t like that it takes 3 weeks to get a winner, via a weird vote re-arranging scheme. Let’s hope for the November Ballot.

  18. And, exactly like when it passed, there will somehow be a flurry of absentee ballots at the last second that swing it.
    RCV is with us permanently because we have zero control and zero insight into our elections.

    • No.
      Disagree totally, adamantly, and completely.
      .
      There is no justification whatsoever for allowing a card carrying Republican party member to have any say in who the Democrats want on the general election ballot. None. The primaries are there to determine who represents the political party in the general election. Letting someone who is not a member of that party vote is absolutely wrong.
      .
      Want to stay undeclared, bummer, you lose your ability to tell the political parties who will represent them in November. If you want to tell the Republicans who can represent them, sign up. Same for any political party.
      .
      No, no, no.
      .
      Oh… one more thing. Ballot Measure 2 did exactly what you are advocating. Did you not know that?

      • So, in a closed primary, how do you propose to keep Democrats from registering as Republicans so they can vote to promote the weakest Republican if they don’t have a strong preference among Democrats (or vice versa with Republicans registering as Democrats)? Unless you’re planning on some sort of lie detector test at the polling booth, I don’t see how closed primaries keep that from happening.

        If you only get one vote (as in the first round primary in AK), it’s an unusual party member who will cast a vote for the other party.

        • I don’t propose to do anything of the sort.
          If a person wants to change party, that is their call. if it swings an election, so be it.
          .
          But, as you note, turnabout is fair play, and I am sure that if members of both parties try to screw the other party over, they will soon realize the futility of it all. I mean, it did not work for Haley in NH or SC. What makes you think it will work often enough for it to be a viable technique?

          • I’m just trying to understand the difference that makes a difference to you between closed and open primaries if people can vote for the other party’s candidate in either system. With the open 4-winner primary, it would be pretty hard for the top D or R not to show up in the top 4.
            I’m not suggesting many voters will do that in either system.

        • If you cannot comprehend the difference I am harping on, either you have never read any of my comments on the subject, or you have the reading comprehension of a three year old.
          There is no justification whatsoever for having a member of a different party (or no party whatsoever) have any say in what candidate represents that party on the ballot.
          Pretty simple.
          Just because the top candidate for the party may end up on the ballot anyway, does not change my point in any way.
          .
          And, if you are not suggesting many voters will change party to get the opposition to run the weakest candidate, why did you write “…how do you propose to keep Democrats from registering as Republicans so they can vote to promote the weakest Republican if they don’t have a strong preference among Democrats (or vice versa with Republicans registering as Democrats)?”
          Sounds a LOT like you are suggesting EXACTLY what you claim you did not suggest.

          • If you don’t have a good argument try an ad hominem attack. That always convinces people!

            What I’m saying is that I don’t see a difference between an open primary where people don’t have to register as party members and a closed one where people can falsely register as members of a party they are not aligned with.

            “Pretty simple.”

        • Because you do not see the difference between an open primary and a closed one does not mean there is no difference, and I do not have a point.
          The difference is plain to see. Closed primary means you must be a member of the party, open primary means the opposite.
          .
          And, why should anyone who is not a member of the party have any say in who represents that party in the general election?

          • I was actually just asking a question about the basis of your position, not claiming you don’t have a point. Usually all that is necessary to vote in closed primaries is to pick one ballot or another at the polling place. If you don’t have to prove party membership, anyone can claim to be a member of any party. In that case, if the top candidates in the major parties are pretty much guaranteed to be among the final four anyway, I don’t see much of a difference between a closed and open primary.

            I have my own reasons for not much liking primaries, either closed or open, the way they are usually done. As for closed primaries, I don’t think taxpayers should have to pay for party primaries which are private affairs, and which only allows for the major parties. I’m fine with parties endorsing whoever they want to.

  20. Last time: “Vote Yes for ELECTION FINANCE REFORM, and rcv. Everyone should want ELECTION FINANCE REFORM!”

    End result: No change to election financing and duped Alaskans vote for RCV.

  21. Having been involved in the efforts of repealing RCV in a SMALL way, I am so proud and thankful for the people I know who worked diligently of their time and talents to get this important issue on the ballot!! Now, let’s get out and VOTE to repeal RCV!!

  23. It’s about time. Now, to work to get the votes to put RCV into the garbage heap where it truly belongs. Tell your family, tell your friends, tell your co-workers and get them out to vote. Next: finding a way to hold the Alaskans for Better Elections – and their cheerleader Jason Grenn – accountable for this sham. Never forget that ABE promised that the RCV initiative would stop outside money from having influence in Alaska. Yet the top groups funding Alaskans for Better Elections are from TA-DAH! – outside.

  24. 36,841 signatures in favor. That is slightly over 10% of total Alaskan voter turnout in the 2020 election. Trump received 52.6%, Biden 42.6%. My take on the RCV issue is 80%of “Conservative Alaskans” really do not much care. Many I personally know have still not taken the time, a small amount of time I might add, to actually read and learn how RCV functions. They still rage about being “forced” to vote for someone they don’t want. Some actually believe their vote will somehow cross party lines. You can’t fix Stupid, you can’t fix lazy. And you can’t fix Alaska. Please prove Me wrong.

    • Well I wrote the bill to repeal RCV so I’m happy to help change your mind. At least from my perspective Alaskans are hard working and willing to put in the time to change their State. Did you know that RCV was brought to Alaska by millions of dollars of dark money while parroting the idea they would stop dark money?

      Did you know they had to hire their signature gathering firm?

      Did you know RCV is Racist?

      Did you know it eliminated 3rd parties?

      Happy to go line by line with you.

    • Well I wrote the bill to repeal RCV so I’m happy to help change your mind. Did you know that RCV was brought to Alaska by millions of dollars of dark money while parroting the idea they would stop dark money?

      Did you know they had to hire their signature gathering firm?

      Did you know RCV is Racist?

      Did you know it eliminated 3rd parties?

      Happy to go line by line with you.

    • Explain that one to all of us Greg.
      How, exactly is a run off more corrupt than RCV, or any other election system known to man? Please, what is it about a run off that leads to corruption.
      .
      Remember, this question is looking for a cause/effect, this leads to that, answer, not snark, and because I say so answer.

    • Maybe not “cry election fraud,” but we will certainly prove it was. Remember, the Spaceforce shuttle is up in the air again from what I hear.

      • “Prove it” just like you didn’t for the 2020 election? Seriously, being a sore loser should have an expiration date. Get over it.

    • If it fails in the same way BM 2 passed, yes, I will. I will call for an audit, (probably get ignored, but will call for it anyway.)
      Just as a reminder, BM2, the vomitous mass that brought us RCV, jungle primaries, and supposedly stopped dark money in politics was failing. Not by much, but failing nonetheless. Right up until two minutes before midnight on the last day absentee ballots were counted. Then suddenly it got a slew of votes, all wanting RCV. Just enough to get past the finish line with a small percentage.
      .
      Weird how that happened. All those people sending in their ballots at the last second seemed to be 100% united in their support for RCV. Nothing suspicious there.

  28. #RankedChoiceVoting #RCV The implementation of ranked-choice voting (RCV) has raised questions about its impact on third-party candidates, as evidenced by the absence of such candidates in the 2022 US Senate Election in Alaska. While it is difficult to attribute this change solely to RCV, the combination of RCV and the top 4 general election format may have influenced the decision-making process for third-party candidates and their supporters. The absence of third-party candidates in Alaska highlights the need for further examination of the influence of RCV on candidate participation.

    Examining the data from the Maine Senate and House of Representatives elections from 2016 to 2022, as well as the Alaska State Senate and House elections from 2020 to 2022, there is little evidence to suggest that RCV benefits third-party candidates. In the Maine Senate, there was an increase of 7 elected Democrats and a decrease of 7 elected Republicans, with no third-party candidates winning seats during this period. Similarly, in the Maine House of Representatives, there was an increase of 5 elected Democrats, a decrease of 5 elected Republicans, and a decrease of 1 elected Independent. These results indicate a total loss of 12 Republicans and a gain of 12 Democrats, with no significant presence of third-party candidates.

    In the Alaska State Senate elections from 2020 to 2022, there was a net increase of 2 Democrats and a net decrease of 2 Republicans, while the number of independent candidates remained unchanged. In the Alaska State House elections during the same period, there was a net decrease of 1 Democrat, no change in the number of Republicans, and an increase of 1 Independent candidate. These results suggest that RCV did not lead to significant changes in the representation of third-party candidates in the Alaska State Senate and House.

    The combination of the Alaska and Maine data calls into question the assumption that RCV provides a boost to third-party candidates. While it is essential to consider the specific context of each election and voting system, the absence of third-party candidates in these elections suggests that RCV alone may not be sufficient to create a favorable environment for their success. Further research is necessary to better understand the relationship between RCV, third-party candidates, and democratic representation.

    In addition to the data previously mentioned, it is worth noting that the introduction of Ranked Choice Voting (RCV) in certain elections coincided with seat flips to the Democratic Party. In the 2018 Maine US House Election, which marked the first year of using RCV, a seat was flipped to the Democratic Party. Similarly, in the 2022 Alaska House Election, which also coincided with the first year of implementing RCV, a seat was flipped to the Democrats. These instances highlight specific races where RCV may have played a role in influencing the outcome and benefiting the Democratic Party.

    When considering the overall impact of RCV on seat outcomes, it is essential to examine the broader picture. In the Maine State Legislature, a total of 12 Democrat seats were won during the specified period, indicating an increase in Democratic representation. Furthermore, one U.S. Congressional seat was won by Democrats in Maine and one in Alaska, and two Alaska State Senate seats were also secured by Democrats. These victories suggest some level of success for the Democratic Party in these particular elections where RCV was utilized.

    • So your main objection is that RCY resulted in Democrats getting elected, yes? If it had gone the other way would you still be rending your garment on this issue? I imagine not.

      • What comment are you replying to?
        I certainly is not the one from Phil Izon directly above this one, because that comment made no such claim.

    • The effect of single winner RCV on third parties is not that it greatly increases the likelihood that third party candidates are going to be elected, but that it makes an election safer from third party spoilers. It makes it safe to vote for a third party candidate with vastly reduced risk of a spoiler effect, in which you hurt the mainstream candidate who is closer to your views. See: Ross Perot, Ralph Nader, Gary Johnson, etc. If you put your lesser of evils mainstream candidate in 2nd place, when your fringe third party candidate is eliminated, your vote is transferred to that mainstream candidate.

      Multi-winner RCV, as in some city council races, is more likely to elect third party candidates if they represent a sizeable enough fraction of the voters.

      Show me any statistically significant evidence that RCV discourages third parties from running. “Studies have shown” doesn’t cut it.

  29. 1. San Francisco 2011:
    A report on the 2011 San Francisco Municipal Election examined the usage of ranked choice voting (RCV). The study found that precincts with higher proportions of Asian and Pacific Islander, Latino, and older voters, as well as more progressive precincts, were more likely to have ballots containing overvotes. Additionally, precincts with higher concentrations of older, moderate, Latino, and Asian and Pacific Islander voters tended to vote for only one candidate instead of ranking multiple preferences.

    2. Implementation Challenges:
    The implementation of RCV in precincts is closely correlated with demographic factors. Low-income and predominantly non-white precincts face challenges with RCV, resulting in higher rates of disenfranchisement compared to high-income, predominantly white precincts. Overvoting, along with other error types such as duplicate candidates and skipped ranks, poses significant issues in RCV ballots. Some precincts experience error rates as high as 23%, affecting one in four voters.

    Specific Case: Oakland 2022:
    In the 2022 Oakland, CA Mayoral election, incorrect instructions on RCV ballots caused confusion. The discrepancy between the instructions for a “5 star” rating survey and RCV ballots led to added challenges in the election process. Furthermore, a significant number of ballots (3.5%) were overvoted, with varying rates across different precincts. The division in overvote rates aligns closely with the demographic division of Oakland, particularly between higher-income areas known as “The Hills” (NE) and lower-income areas referred to as “The Flats” (SW), particularly East Oakland below 580.

    Conclusion:
    These findings highlight the challenges and discrepancies associated with ranked choice voting. Concerns about overvoting, undervoting, and demographic disparities in ballot errors call for a closer examination of the system’s effectiveness and fairness. Critics, including Governor Gavin Newsom of California and former Governor Jerry Brown, have expressed concerns about voter confusion and the complexity of ranked-choice voting. Similarly, Governor Charlie Baker of Massachusetts emphasized the need for thorough evaluation before implementing RCV. Governor Steve Sisolak of Nevada raised concerns about rushed changes to the constitutional process, which could potentially exacerbate confusion and exclusion within the system. These viewpoints highlight the importance of further exploration, analysis, and education to ensure a fair and reliable voting system.

  31. Over 153,000 Alaskans who voted for Trump were too lazy, too stupid or both to search out and sign that RCV repeal petition. Think about that people. They are your friends,family, co-workers, neighbors, doctors, ect. and they can’t be relied upon to make the least bit of effort. FOOTBALL SNOWMACHINE CATCHFISH DERP DERPDERP DERP. We are getting exactly what OUR PEOPLE want us to get. And we are getting

    • And, that is EXACTLY why I am adamantly opposed to vote by mail.
      Those very people you describe who are obviously not interested in politics in any way, suddenly get a ballot in the mail, and cast uninformed votes.

  32. And another one of my posts gets censored. Starting to wonder who runs this site. Alaska is getting exactly what it votes for. And and getting good and hard. Go ahead, censor me again. And again and again. The truth is is SO unpleasant. CBMTTek, I agree 100%. Many ballots are not cast by the owner of said ballot. With no proper chain of custody how would one know. If a bad actor had access to voter rolls, and they do, all they would need to do is collect from the thousands of mail in ballots thrown away by the useless eaters. Pure gold. An audit you say? You can’t have no stinking audit ! says the DEMOCRAT judge. The Democrats own the courts, the schools, the police, the polling stations. Yes, THEY count the votes now. 2020 proved all of this. 2024? We shall see. They ain’t playin.

    • “Many ballots are not cast by the owner of said ballot. With no proper chain of custody how would one know.”
      .
      Unfortunately, the anonymous nature of our voting system makes it damned well impossible to prove vote fraud. Take mail in voting for example. The moment the ballot gets separated from the envelope and signature you cannot tell which ballot was cast illegally. Same with mail in voting. Show up without a photo ID and vote for someone else. Even if you are discovered, there is no way to know what ballot was cast illegally.
      .
      The courts, whether the judge was appointed by Dems or Reps does not matter, will not entertain a case where they might have to negate a legally cast ballot. Without overwhelming evidence the entire election was done illegally, the courts will not take it up because there is no decision that will pass scrutiny under anonymous balloting. “John Doe, we found you guilty of casting an illegal ballot. Which one is it? We can’t tell, so we will just grab a random one…” Not going to happen.
      .
      Added bonus from the judicial standpoint. Unless the illegally cast ballots could alter the outcome of the election, they are even less likely to take the case and alter the outcome. “Judge, this man illegally cast 200 ballots for the winning candidate.” Unless the winning margin was less than the number of provable illegal votes, the election results are not going to be questioned. Yes, if the man is found guilty of casting 200 votes illegally, he will get dinged, but the election is not going to be re-done.

  33. Early voting and mail in voting make it much easier for DEMOCRATS to cheat. Those two and knowledge of who votes who don’t and what party they support is big medicine for the DEMOCRATS. Time to sort and and re-cast those ballots is why the DEMOCRATS love early and mail in voting. Time to end it!

Comments are closed.