By MICHAEL TAVOLIERO
The repeal of ranked-choice voting will be a question on the November ballot in Alaska.
Ranked-choice voting fundamentally contradicts conservative principles by introducing complexity and expanding bureaucratic control. That, in turn, undermines both electoral transparency and the foundational concept of a republican form of government.
Alex Gimarc’s spot-on Must Read Alaska column discusses the characteristic comparisons of organizations such as the Conservative Majority Fund. Frankly, this organization strives to connect local and state political adventures to D.C. power and control models, which ensure the continuation of federal centralization and the erosion of states sovereignty.
As contemporaneous evidence, please look at the Nancy Dahlstrom campaign and its top-down support.
From a conservative perspective, the so-called Conservative Majority Fund is a classic example of neo-conservatism and, at the least, an effigy for the continued expansion of the federal bureaucracy.
Ranked-choice voting represents a deliberate departure from conservative values, which prioritize simplicity, transparency, and accountability in governance. By making it harder to verify election outcomes and necessitating a move away from transparency, RCV risks placing too much power in the hands of unelected bureaucrats and the election-related technology they oversee, thereby undermining the constitutional guarantee of a republican form of government.
The U.S. Constitution guarantees every state a “Republican Form of Government,” as outlined in Article IV, Section 4. This promise is rooted in the idea that elected officials should be directly accountable to voters. RCV complicates this relationship by allowing for election outcomes where a candidate who was not the first choice of most voters can still win.
Additionally, RCV tends to favor mediocre candidates over those with strong values. As evidence, look at the election of Mary Peltola to Congress.
Public trust in computerized voting processes is at an all-time low, particularly after the 2020 presidential election, where concerns about vote-switching with computer driven voting machines were widespread. RCV’s complexity makes it very suspect, leaving contested and tight elections unresolved to the public’s satisfaction.
With that said, RCV requires sophisticated software to sort and analyze votes, creating a significant dependency on computerized systems. This reliance raises concerns about whether votes are being processed correctly, as there is no straightforward way to verify the results, particularly when compared to traditional ballots that only need to be counted once, not counted, sorted, and counted again.
Ranked-choice voting is a pathway to dehumanization by subconsciously emphasizing vote aggregation, rather than candidate principles and values. The mechanical nature of RCV reduces the importance of individual candidates’ integrity and policy stances, instead prioritizing how votes are mathematically tallied and redistributed.
Such a system distances voters from the core values and beliefs that typically guide their choices, potentially leading to a more impersonal, numbers-driven approach to elections.
From a constitutional perspective, ranked-choice voting may also infringe upon First Amendment rights, particularly the right to free political expression through voting. The system’s complexity can deter voter participation and engagement, suppressing voter turnout and clarity. Is this a violation of the right to freely express political preferences?
The U.S. Supreme Court has emphasized that political speech must prevail against laws that would suppress it, subjecting such laws to “strict scrutiny.” It is questionable whether RCV meets this burden or if it suppresses political speech.
While ranked-choice voting was adopted through a plebiscite in Alaska, voters were misled by promises to eliminate voter polarization and dark money influences. The Guarantee Clause of the U.S. Constitution, ensuring a republican form of government, is challenged by RCV’s potential to produce election outcomes that do not reflect the majority’s first-choice preferences.
The implementation of RCV in Alaska affects a wide range of groups, from voters who must navigate a more complex system to political parties, candidates, and unelected officials who gain greater control over the electoral process. This debate is not just about voting mechanics but also about broader principles of democracy, representation, and governance.
Quoting Alex Gimarc’s noteworthy column, “Any time someone tells you a change in election law is for your own good, will simplify anything, or will save money, don’t believe them.”
I say, if you’re looking to employ more unelected bureaucrats, ranked-choice voting is the camel’s nose under the tent of public service employment opportunity.
This upcoming election may demonstrate what real conservatives think about our voting process and its sacredness to liberty.
Michael Tavoliero is a resident of Eagle River and writes for Must Read Alaska.
“RCV requires sophisticated software to sort and analyze votes, creating a significant dependency on computerized systems. This reliance raises concerns about whether votes are being processed correctly, as there is no straightforward way to verify the results”
B I N G O
Agree. I would call that ‘enough said’.
You are correct
That would be proprietary software, meaning nobody outside the company knows what it does, or what it may appear to do while doing something completely differently.
.
Recall that only about 5% of the electronic count is verified with a hand count, and that after the second shuffle, the ballot audit trail disappears.
.
Hardly confidence inspiring.
Mike Tavoliero, a lot to unpack in your article. Rather than doing that, just consider if Rank Choice Voting is “a dog’s breakfast” why does it work so well for the Democrats? They love it. Why can’t Republicans make it work? RCV obviously eviscerates the political parties so therefore the most powerful party had the most to lose. Is the fact RCV gives the power to voters rather than parties what gives the Democrats an advantage? It looks like the R-party doesn’t adapt to the power shift as readily as the D-party does. “Contemporaneous evidence” of that is the Dahlstrom campaign. If Nick wins it will be in spite of the Republican establishment elites. Maybe that’s a good thing. If the real reason you want to abolish RCV is to give power back to the parties then we should perhaps vote to keep it in place. Just think, if the R-party had its way, the R-voters’ candidate would not even be the one most of them wanted. As to our constitution, never forget it necessarily has democratic as well as republican features. For example, electing politicians by majority vote is a democratic process.
“Why can’t Republicans make it work? ”
Because the Republicans are not playing with the same rule book. For whatever reason, they ignore Alinsky, and pretend this is somehow a gentleman’s boxing match, instead of the mudwrestling MMA fight the dems are waging.
Wayne, I suppose I reject the premise of your comment.
RCV was hatched by Team Lisa as a response to her rejection by Republicans in the 2010 primary. It was worse in 2016, where Lisa got 44% while the combination of Ray Metcalfe, Margaret Stock and Joe Miller pulled 54% of the vote. Clearly, Team Lisa had to change the rules or she would never be elected to the US Senate again.
After extensive focus group work, the pro-RCV quickly settled on the campaign message that passing it would remove dark $$$, outside $$$ from all political campaigns in Alaska. See any of that happen yet? Neither do I. Rather than removing dark $$$ from the political wars, RCV as passed put it in the driver’s seat. So, its passage was based entirely on a lie to both voters and the general public.
Finally, we have malpractice out of the Alaska Supreme Court which has been rejecting ballot initiatives for decades for trying to do more than one thing. The RCV initiative did at least 7 things, which was just fine with the Alaska Supremes. Happily, once they set their new standard, it was impossible for them to reject the current repeal initiative.
A repeal doesn’t give power back to parties. Rather, it restores the ability of parties to select their own candidates. It also allows third and other parties the same ability and get their candidates on the general election ballot. It does not remove the ability of anyone to run as an indy.
Question for you: How long are you going to let Team Lisa rewrite and otherwise manipulate state election law for her own personal benefit? Cheers –
Answer:
Because only ONE Democrat emerges in the general election, and usually two or three Republicans emerge, to dilute their party’s chances. RCV eliminates a closed Republican Primary, where a conservative can emerge victorious.
If I’m right, Lisa Murkowski was the so-called “conservative that emerged victorious” from Republican party primaries three times before being beaten by Joe Miller. Obviously, the Republican party elites march to their own uni-party drummer and generally ignore the conservative Republican grassroots. For example, the elites recently worked against the grassroots by injecting Dahlstrom into the mix. Its only because the grassroots beat the elites over the head in the jungle primary did the elitists persuade Dahlstrom to fold. Republican grassroots must repeatedly expend most of their energy opposing their own uni-party elitists rather than Marxist Democrats.
Why can’t the Republican Party just hold a caucus or convention to nominate candidates? Parties don’t need the government to run nomination proceedings. They can run them just fine on their own.
RCV is a solution to a non-existent problem.
Claims it better represents the majority of voters are speculative at best. Having your second or third choice in office for two, four, or six years does not represent the majority of the voters.
.
It just makes them angrier than if a plurality candidate won.
The number one reason for getting rid of RCV:
Closed Republican Primary.
Winner goes to the General Election.
Goodbye Lisa Murkowski!
She should have lost, twice. Let alone, given her seat by Frank.
The irony of all this is that Liiisa was appointed immediately after her near loss for state house to…..Nancy Dahlstrom!
Was that before or after her 6th try at the Bar Exam?
If she loses a primary, she should be able to run as an independent with her name on the ballot. Why should an organization’s private nomination process have any bearing on any candidate’s access to a public ballot? Please also consider that if she indeed is the most preferred candidate of all voters, blocking her from the general election ballot creates an election failure.
Michael, you don’t specify which way the dog’s breakfast is going. I’m guessing it would be coming out! Leftists (both democrat and Republican) always hate simplicity and transparency in voting. The convoluted process that is RCV is a great example of that. I’ve said this before on here and I’ll say it again: Centralized voting, voting machines, the push against voter ID are all in place for one purpose and one purpose alone – to facilitate cheating. In that regard, RCV fits right in.
The Bible says it best: “A dog returns to its vomit…” Proverbs 26:11
Agreed.
Ranked Choice Voting is a shell game, diametrically opposed to one-person-one-vote. It should be easily proved to contravene the Constitution. Why is that not the case?
Who even concocted RCV? I truly am curious and likely could find out if I had more time to spare for extraneous research. I would rather read Must Read in my meager spare time. I certainly do not consider RCV ‘‘voting’. Something that needs a gaming type program to achieve some erroneous outcome is not ‘voting’. There was nothing wrong with the simple procedure of voting for the candidate you most preferred. That system has been tried and true for as long as the procedure of voting as existed. It seems the left is constantly looking for ways to engineer outcomes in their favor. Well it seems this election their nefarious efforts may backfire as this seasons conservative candidates are willing to sacrifice foe the good of the voters.
Its wikipedia, but it has citations, so:
‘https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_and_use_of_instant-runoff_voting
“Quoting Alex Gimarc’s noteworthy column, ‘Any time someone tells you a change in election law is for your own good, will simplify anything, or will save money, don’t believe them.’ ”
By this logic, you must be opposed to repealing RCV, or at least that we should not believe you, since you claim doing so is for our own good and will simplify things.