By CRAIG CAMPBELL
In just two weeks we have the opportunity to repeal Ranked Choice Voting, known as RCV.
In 2020, RCV proponents employed a magician’s “sleight of hand” trick; campaigning on eliminating dark money from Alaska and rarely mentioning RCV in order to push Ballot Measure 2.
That year, Ballot Measure 2 barely passed with just 50.55% in favor, and 49.45% opposed, ushering RCV into Alaska with the slimmest of majorities.
This year we have the chance to repeal RCV and return our state to its former traditional election process. However, voters are facing an unprecedented push by No on 2 to defeat this grassroots initiative, and the No on 2 campaign has over $12.3 million to flood the airways with deceptive advertising.
Take, for example, the advertisement where No on 2, which is funded by out-of-state organizations, claims that if RCV is repealed military personnel would be forced to join a political party to participate in the election process.
Balderdash! Military members never had to join a political party to vote in Alaska’s primary or general elections, and would not after RCV is repealed either.
While the Republican Party of Alaska had a partially closed primary process prior to 2020, those who did not affiliate themselves with a different political party had the ability to vote in the Republican primary. Alternatively, they had the option to vote using the non-Republican ballot. Claiming military members had to choose a party to be able to vote is frankly dishonest, and disingenuous to service members and veterans. The real issue is whether RCV should be repealed.
So why is the No on 2 campaign only focused on the open primary process, when RCV is the real issue? The fact is they know most Alaskans do not support RCV because it convolutes the election process and does not ensure the winner represents who the majority favors.
Their ads claim that under the current system people can vote for the person they believe is the best candidate in the primary process. Left unsaid is the fact that during the general election, under RCV, voters rank four candidates, not one. That results in a complicated process, which in 2022 elected Democrat Mary Peltola to Congress when the primary had the two Republicans collectively garner more votes than she did. So much for “One Person, One Vote.”
An open primary is not the main objective of No on 2. Their goal is to preserve their holy grail: RCV. In a democratic society, we should be allowed to separately vote on different issues. Combining two disrelated topics creates a “Hobson’s Choice” for voters. A person may like one issue but not the other, but to get the issue they favor passed, they must approve the issue they do not support. That’s election manipulation at its finest and No on 2 is a master at this fraudulent deceptive maneuver.
There is a simple solution to this problem: Vote Yes on Ballot Measure 2 and repeal RCV. Bring back election integrity to Alaska and get rid of the RCV election scheme. Then, either the Legislature or a citizen’s initiative can address the open primary issue as a single topic.
Remember, RCV resulted in a convicted felon in a New York prison to be on our ballot for congress next month. The absurdity of this is outrageous. It’s time to terminate this failed RCV experiment. Vote Yes on Ballot Measure 2 to repeal RCV.
Craig E. Campbell served on the Anchorage Assembly between 1986 and 1995 and later as Alaska’s Tenth Lieutenant Governor. He was the previous Chief Executive Officer and President for Alaska Aerospace Corporation. He retired from the Alaska National Guard as Lieutenant General (AKNG) and holds the concurrent retired Federal rank of Major General (USAF).
RCV has many drawbacks but the troubling is implementing RCV forces us to turn our elections over to vote counting software programs that we’re not allowed to see the code for. That puts the results of our elections under the control of whoever programs the computers. I could write the simplistic programming code necessary to completely change the final results to install whoever I want into office. Nothing to it. If we’re not allowed to see the programming code that determines the election outcome so that we can validate the results as honest and accurate then RCV has to go…and we should go back to paper ballots and hand counting just so we can trust what we’re told.
And with the lies that have been exposed, Russian Collusion, for example, or doubt in this manipulable process is reasonably, if not required.
I believe the tabulation software is open source, if they’re using what I think they’re using. If not, there are certified open source systems available. And in any case, I’d certainly agree they should make the cast vote records public. There are only 64 ways to fill out a ballot with 4 candidates, so it is easy to do. And then it is a nearly trivial exercise in building a spreadsheet to run the tabulation.
Doesn’t matter whether software’s open-source or “certified”.
.
Software, and firmware, can be finagled anytime, anywhere by anyone in non-trivial ways election observers’ll never detect.
.
And that’s the whole point, no?
More eyes on software = more security and there are ways to digitally sign software so you can tell if it has been “finagled”. And certification is quite a rigorous process. Any kind of election (or other) software is potentially subject to attempts to attack. That is one reason why making cast vote records public is a good idea. Because then anyone could double check the calculation to satisfy themselves. Then it is just a question of chain of custody of the ballots and that is the same problem with any kind of voting, RCV or not.
Good to know, isn’t it, that digitally signed software can never, ever be hacked or spoofed?
.
Sleep better, don’t we, knowing the $12M campaign to force RCV on Alaskans can never, ever be a foil, a distraction from digital skulduggery emplaced to make RCV say one thing and do quite another?
P.S. What chain of custody?
.
The one lost after the second “round” of RCV shuffling?
Re: signing of software: I didn’t say “never, ever”. (What is it with people here and strawman arguments?) However, it can be made *extremely* difficult to get around. I’m all for doing whatever is possible to make election systems more secure and transparent, including having paper ballots one can always revert to if needed. Security gaps in election systems aren’t anything new or specific to RCV, they’ve been with us all along. Skepticism is warranted but I don’t think jumping to the worst possible conclusions is very constructive.
I don’t know what you’re referring to with the chain of custody comment.
RCV proponents seem too eager to gamble other peoples’ elections on computers and software into which no observer is allowed to peer.
.
This election’s way too important to risk losing to an “aw shucks, musta missed that security gap” moment.
.
Remember Stuxnet, made possible with legit digital certs, or the CCleaner corruption made possible also with legit digital certs?
.
Ballot chain-of-custody might be problematic when doing a credible RCV audit. Might be worth calling the Director of Elections, asking what exactly happens to ballot chain of custody after the second “round” of RCV shuffling.
.
RCV can hardly be considered open and honest if it can’t be audited, no?
You think computers are not used to tally non-RCV elections? The same issues apply in all cases. There are no silver bullets here that solve all potential problems. That’s why multiple systems and multiple methods and multiple observers are needed. It has nothing to do with RCV per se.
Why do you think RCV can’t be audited? At least let’s disagree based on facts.
With all the advertisements going for No on proposition two the standard voter will be brainwashed in voting no. The campaign against two should’ve had more advertising.
I am voting yes on prop two
I agree with you that there should have been more advertising to repeal ranked choice voting. WITH THAT SAID, there were small groups here and there throughout the state trying to get the word out and Phil Izon/Alaskans for Honest Elections did what he could through the petition, interviews, and writing articles, creating videos and writing several books. Grassroots operations have done what they could with no support from all legislators, except one throughout the entire time of trying to get the repeal on the ballot. Now, we have several legislators speaking up in support of getting rid of it, but support should have been given two or three years ago. It would have been nice if we had some millionaire or billionaire to buy a few hundred signs to place around the area, but it did not happen.
It is up to the People to put the word out; be the boots on the ground to make sure that Alaskans know the truth about RCV and to vote YES to get rid of it.
“That year, Ballot Measure 2 barely passed with just 50.55% in favor, and 49.45% opposed…”
A lead that appeared on the last day for counting the ballots if I remember. Weird how the overwhelming majority of voters who mailed in their ballots at the last second all wanted RCV. Weird…
.
As to the rest of it, absolutely agree. The marketing stretches the “facts” so far they are equivalent to lies. And, if your cause is so righteous, why do you feel the need to lie?
Great article, Craig. We’ve been fed a solid diet of BS since Scott Kendall introduced this idea. It’s been a turd sandwich wrapped in all the populist talking points so we couldn’t see or smell what was inside. There’s more dark money in AK elections now than ever. Most funneled by Kendall’s comrades on the left. The radio ads that Republicans would have won in past elections is total fabrication because NO ONE had ranked their votes. Yes, people are buying this crap. And it was pathetic to sit during the AFN banquet and hear the same tripe repeated from the lectern. And worse, to hear the room erupt in applause.
Craig Campbell has always had a good perspective.
And he is right on this one, too.
VOYE YES ON 2.
The GOP likes the primary that excludes people from voting. Unfortunately the dark money loves the GOP and they want to keep it that way. The GOP motto might as well be “we will do the thinking for you!” Corruption loves the two party primary system.
Wow, I replaced GOP with Democrats and everything you just wrote remains 100% valid.
VOTE YES ON 2
🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸
Freedom lovers. The socialist wants to control you. They lie as they attempt to manipulate you. Don’t be a sap. Educate yourself and stay informed.
*Vote No on 1. Keep government out of your business.
*Vote YES on 2. You know it’s the right thing to do. Let’s finish the job. Get rid of RCV.
I’M hoping people don’t believe the no on 2 ads We CAN NOT take anymore Peltola trash or RCV trash
I hate RCV and voted against it the first time.
Sadly, I don’t have high hopes that it will be repealed this election.
Why?
Because the evil dark forces are pouring untold $millions into this state, and the airwaves are awash with ads supporting RVC, and all of them are voiced with outright psychopathic lies.
Yes, the Left are all psychopaths.
The average voter is busy just trying to work and keep their heads above water, and do not have the time and energy to do the deep dive into political info that some of us do.
So it’s easy to understand if they are fooled by the cleverly worded, if psychopathic, ads that are a veritable tsunami of misinformation assaulting everyone every time their radio is on, or they watch a video or streaming service.
All valid points from Craig Campbell.
But what I’ve never been able to figure out is why the conservative right opposes RCV when it is undeniable that it would have prevented Tony Knowles from winning the Governorship in 1994 and also prevented Mark Begich from becoming Anchorage mayor in 2003, had RCV been in effect in those jurisdictions. Jack Coghill and Rick Mystrom both pulled ~15%, with the majority of their votes coming from the leading Republican in each of those races.
I tell ya, wanting to get rid of Lisa Murkowski must be a powerful drug, because on the whole, RCV benefits Republicans!!
It was fun to see Murkowski holding a No on 2 sign at AFN. It’s the ONLY way she maintains power, by avoiding a Republican semi-open primary (open to republicans and those who are not in a formal other party.) The day that RCV benefits Republicans is … well, the day Nick Begich wins … and if he does it is because Republicans refused to play the game and Nancy Dahlstrom did the honorable thing and dropped out to end this charade. You completely are ignoring the fact that democrats are telling white men under the age of 60 to only vote for John Howe and not to rank Nick. You and the Democrats, two peas in a totally incestuous pod.
Ivan,
We all know that you poll for Democrats and your opinion about RCV is based on …..bunk.
But thanks for checking in here at MRAK. Even leftists know where to get the truth.
Amazing how Ivan is being so active on the boards lately. He must have some skin in the game that he is going to lose when ranked choice voting is repealed. I pray it gets repealed because the People have a lot of representatives to FIRE and get some honest ones to represent the People.
Alaska had the equivalent of open primaries from 1947 until 2000. I don’t understand why Republicans are so afraid of a voting system with such a long history of success. ‘https://www.elections.alaska.gov/research/primary-election-history/
In order to get RCV on the ballot an initiative had to be circulated with a requisite number of signatures. Out of work union members were paid to stand at the entrance of Safeways, Fred Meyers, post offices and many other locations collecting signatures. This was the work of dirt bag leftist Scott Kendall and his union cronies throughout Alaska. They got the job done because no one really understood the implications of RCV and there was no pushback to the initiative. Now we have to clean up the absolute mess left behind. And don’t forget the real reason why RCV was an Alaska experiment in the first place:
To get Lisa Murkowski elected. She could never win a closed Republican primary. The Alaska Republican Party has been trying to get rid of that old witch for the past 15 years.
RCV is a perfidious scam foisted on Alaskan voters by the far left to keep Murkowski in power and destroy the will of the voter majority, thus we end up with Peltola.
Alaska, vote YES on 2 to rid our beloved state of this horrendous voting system known as RCV.
How are we suppose to vote – using Ranked Voting.
We did not want Murkowski, but she stayed in office – because she was the 2nd choice. Craziness.
Went to the AlaskaGOP site, and found nothing on that site either.
Will our FIRST CHOICE ever make it? Please Help
Do not rank anyone else but your first choice. Trump, Begich, your state Senate and House conservative Republicans.
Oh …….
No on #1.
Yes on #2.
Good job!!!
“… RCV … does not ensure the winner represents who the majority favors.”
This is incorrect. RCV is much more likely to elect a candidate who the majority supports than first-past-the-post (i.e., “traditional”) voting, in which the winner only needs a plurality, not necessarily a majority.
You have an error there.
” RCV is much more likely to elect a candidate who the majority supports”
.
It should read:
” RCV is much more likely to elect a candidate who the majority can tolerate.”
.
There, fixed it for you. No need to thank me, I am happy to help.
Ha ha. The corollary is that first-past-the-post is much more likely to elect a candidate who is supported by a plurality that may well not be the majority, and who the majority cannot tolerate (in the event of a winner with only a plurality and not a majority). That is, the largest faction will win unless their vote is split between candidates appealing to the same voters anyway, a problem that RCV does not have to anywhere near the same degree.
You’re welcome.
Comments are closed.