By MICHAEL TAVOLIERO
While the Jesse Sumner’s Must Read Alaska column presents a case for open primaries and ranked choice voting (RCV) as beneficial to Alaska conservatives, there are several reasons why I challenge this view, particularly from the perspective of preserving traditional conservative values and the integrity of the electoral process.
On one hand, Sumner advocates for “less regulation and smaller government” as the best way to ensure freedom and prosperity. This philosophy typically aligns with a preference for straightforward, minimalistic systems that limit government intervention and complexity. It is also a dog whistle for progressive ideology, which now overwhelms Alaska’s political fabric.
However, in the same breath, he supports open primaries and ranked-choice voting (RCV). These are systems that introduce more regulation, complexity, and government involvement in the electoral process. These statements by Sumner may not appear disingenuous to him, but they contradict the fundamental principles he claims to uphold.
Open primaries and RCV are designed to modify how elections function, requiring additional rules, oversight, and administrative processes. This stands in contrast to the principle of smaller government, which would favor less regulation and simpler, more direct voting methods. Therefore, by advocating for these more complex electoral systems, Sumner contradicts his own stated belief in minimal government interference, revealing a lack of coherence in his reasoning. This dissonance suggests a self-delusion, as he fails to recognize how his support for these systems undermines the very principles of limited government that he claims to prioritize.
Open primaries and RCV blur the lines between political parties, allowing non-Republicans to influence the outcome of Republican primaries and erode both party integrity and conservative values.
This dilutes the party’s core principles and could lead to the selection of candidates who do not fully represent conservative values. A prime example is the current senior U.S. Sen. Lisa Murkowski, for whom the open primary and ranked-choice general was designed.
In a closed primary, only registered Republicans would have a say in choosing their candidate, ensuring that the nominee aligns closely with the party’s ideology. Open primaries, on the other hand, can lead to the nomination of candidates who appeal to a broader, less ideologically consistent electorate, potentially weakening the party’s stance on key issues like small government and personal freedom.
Open primaries and RCV are susceptible to strategic voting, where voters may rank candidates from opposing parties lower or manipulate their rankings to ensure a less desirable candidate from another party wins. This could result in candidates being elected who do not genuinely reflect the majority preference of conservative voters. Traditional first-past-the-post systems, where the candidate with the most votes wins, are straightforward and less prone to such manipulation, preserving the integrity of the electoral process.
RCV can be confusing for voters, particularly those who are not well-versed in the intricacies of the voting process. The added complexity may discourage voter participation or lead to spoiled ballots, particularly among older or less educated voters who might struggle with the ranking process. In contrast, a simpler voting system ensures that every voter can easily understand and participate in the electoral process, maintaining high levels of voter engagement and confidence in the outcomes.
Sumner argues that RCV benefits conservatives by preventing vote-splitting. However, RCV could also lead to unintended consequences, such as the election of moderate or less conservative candidates, as it encourages candidates to appeal to a broader base, potentially diluting conservative principles.
In a state like Alaska, where the electorate is diverse and includes a significant number of non-partisan voters, RCV could lead to outcomes that do not fully align with conservative values, undermining the influence of the conservative base.
The 2022 U.S. congressional race was won by vote splitting because conservatives who chose not to rank had to split their vote between choices on the conservative side.
Sumner cites past elections where RCV might have changed the outcome in favor of Republicans, but it’s also important to recognize that conservatives have successfully won elections in Alaska without RCV. Traditional voting systems have allowed conservatives to maintain significant influence in state politics, even when faced with close races. There’s no guarantee that RCV would consistently benefit conservatives, and the traditional system has proven its effectiveness in electing conservative leaders who align with the values of their constituents.
Traditional primary systems foster competition within the party, encouraging candidates to clearly define their platforms and appeal directly to the party’s base. Open primaries and RCV, however, reduce this intra-party competition, potentially leading to a less vibrant and dynamic political environment. By preserving traditional primary systems, conservatives can ensure that candidates who best represent the party’s values emerge as the nominees, strengthening the party’s ideological consistency and appeal.
The notion that ranked-choice voting curtails the amount of dark money in Alaska’s election system is also problematic in the context of Sumner’s statement. While RCV was promoted as a way to reduce the influence of dark money by making it harder for outside groups to sway election outcomes through negative campaigning, the reality is more complex.
Dark money, political spending by organizations that do not disclose their donors, can still play a significant role under RCV. We are currently witnessing this potential with the huge amounts of money fronted by the National Republican Congressional Committee supporting the US Congressional candidate, Nancy Dahlstrom.
In fact, the need for candidates to appeal to a broader audience in multiple rounds of voting could increase the incentive for dark money groups to influence voters through targeted messaging across various rounds. This adds another layer of contradiction to Mr. Sumner’s argument, as his support for RCV, justified by his belief in less regulation and smaller government, overlooks the fact that RCV might not effectively reduce dark money’s influence and could even complicate efforts to identify and limit such interference.
While open primaries and ranked choice voting may have some benefits, they also pose significant risks to the integrity of conservative values, the electoral process, and the party’s ability to consistently elect leaders who truly represent the principles of small government, personal freedom, and traditional values.
Conservatives in Alaska should carefully consider whether these systems align with their long-term goals or whether traditional voting methods better serve the party’s interests and the state’s unique political landscape.
Michael Tavoliero is a senior writer at Must Read Alaska.
Excellent article I hope we can get rid of RCV! It’s also interesting to note that RINO dahlstrom has not opposed RCV while grassroots conservative Nick Begich is on record opposing RCV.
Michael would be pumping his fist and championing RCV if his (our) party could somehow, someway stack the election with smart, well-informed, politically savvy candidates. Imagine 3 candidates similar to Nick Begich running for the House seat. The incumbent would be easily swept aside and we couldn’t lose.
But no, thus far the Republican AK party can’t manage to do that, and as a result malcontents like Mike blame the system instead of themselves. Let’s hope the Party and the rest of the sore losers wise up.
Spot on Mr. TAVOLIERO
When all the excess baggage is stripped from the article, RCV eliminates the relevance of political primaries. Moreover, political parties can do nothing more than recommend a candidate. The voters make the choice as to who their general election candidate will be. RCV gives the advantage to the Democrats because they have a stronger herd instinct and are more easily corralled by their party elites. Republicans just need to learn how to play the game.
Apparently we did, when Dahlstrom made the Al Gross decision.
When all the excess baggage is stripped from the article, RCV eliminates the relevance of party primaries. Moreover, political parties can do nothing more than recommend a candidate. The voters make the choice as to who their general election candidate will be. RCV gives the advantage to the Democrats because they have a stronger herd instinct and are more easily corralled by their party elites. Republicans just need to learn how to play the game.
Nancy and I agree with you Michael. You make a lot of sense, except for one thing:
Your approach extinguishes the Murkowski Dynasty.
Dumpster fires SHOULD be extinguished
And that’s a bad thing? We already had a judge who literally changed the law on election day in 2010 that screwed up that election. That should not be allowed!
I agree. Rank Choice Viting dilutes party support and effectiveness. As I believe it was designed to.
I’ve been knocking on doors and supporting candidates in my area since the late 1970’s.
Half a century of engagement and nothing I’ve seen has been more destructive to building broad based conservative policy than Ranked Choice Voting.
It confuses voters. Not just minimally informed voters, which it certainly does. But also engaged fully committed voters, because I find myself explaining to volunteers in our Republican Central Committee how it works.
It is the opposite of transparent. Only the computer knows how the count goes, who is eliminated, who advances, who gets whom’s vote.
I call it a system to select “second place winner.” Because it gives third place votes to the second place candidate. It is a mess.
And it starts with the primary, which is not ranked, just wide open so D’s, et al, can cross over and vote for their favorite Republican.
I’m conservative. Ranked Choice Voting is not. It is, like a heaping pile of salmon left for days under a hot sun, simply rank.
Our Constitution begins with “We the People” RCV provides a more representative choice of the People vs. a political party choice in a closed primary system
Explain to us all, why a registered Republican should have any say whatsoever in who the Democrats want to put on the General Election ballot? (Or vice versa)
.
Sorry, but the primary is for the party to determine who the party wants to represent the party on the general election ballot. Not who the population wants to represent the party. And, if that was the case, the jungle primary would divide candidates by party, and allow the voters to select one per party.
On Twitter, Nick Begich III brings up the question as to why the dems don’t put more candidates in their races if they love RCV so much? Good question!
https://x.com/AlaskanRants/status/1824936231966552517
Mr. Tavoliero, You are spot on. Your analysis is intelligent and well reasoned. I am not impressed with Mr. Sumner’s mental acuity. He might be really good at what he does for his regular job but I’m not sure he belongs in politics.
Great article and well explained. RSV simply is not voting. One vote, for one candidate.
You’re smarter than Jesse “red light runner” Sumner
Vote YES on ballot measure 2, in November #repealRCV
Sumner needs to explain why democrats are not loading the ballot with candidates if they love ranked choice voting so much.
Republicans need to explain to themselves why they can’t successfully rank their candidates on a ballot when Democrats only make up 12.27% of the electorate and Republicans make up 23.16%.
59.48% are unaffilated. You’d better figure this out, or the 21st Century is going to be a really tough period for you…………
That I have to agree with you on Reggie. First, the AK GOP needs to start playing the game right by having only ONE candidate running. Second, the Republicans need to rank all Republicans…whether they want to or not. Only voting for one Republican candidate – if there are multiple candidates – in the General election is going to hand the win to Peltola again.
Dahlstrom, the majority of Republicans do not want you representing them. Drop out. You are a smear on Trump’s name and you are going down as another person who will not be welcomed by the majority of Alaskans because you don’t do your job and support the other side.
Your “unaffiliated” number is made up of:
Political Groups:
C – ALASKA CONSTITUTION PARTY
E – MODERATE PARTY OF ALASKA
G – GREEN PARTY OF ALASKA
H – OWL PARTY
K – ALLIANCE PARTY OF ALASKA
L – ALASKA LIBERTARIAN PARTY
O – PROGRESSIVE PARTY OF ALASKA
P – PATRIOT’S PARTY OF ALASKA
V – VETERANS PARTY OF ALASKA
W – UCES’ CLOWNS PARTY
Other:
N – NONPARTISAN
U – UNDECLARED
And, in my experience, at least half of the “undeclared” (actually more like 75%) will consistently vote Democrat across the board. It is so prevalent, that when I hear “Independent” I just mark them as a D vote.
Only approximately 15% of voters are D and 25% are R!
Why should they be telling 60% of Alaskans who to vote for?
As usual, Tavoliero knows what he is talking about. And I would add the following:
Alaskans made the Big Mistake by beginning statehood with state-run open primaries. A political party is a private organization, but by allowing the gov’t to run the primary, the parties were compromised. The state ought to have no more interest in a political party’s leadership than it would in an Elk’s Club election for Grand Poo-Bah. But it was so easy to do back then, because our parties had little dough, and of course, the “More gov’t” party, the Dems, were perfectly OK with it all.
The state CAN determine the qualifications of an individual candidate or a political party’s appearance on the General Election ballot, but nothing more.
How would a party pay for primaries? By a fee at the polls on primary day, or by annual dues. This might drive people away, but all those vaunted independent voters would quickly realize that unless they joined a party, they would have no influence in their November choices. Hence, parties would GROW and the “undeclared” numbers would shrink.
OR — a party might choose its candidates by CONVENTION! The AIP wanted to do just that about its governor candidates decades ago, but the tin-hat gods of the state supreme court would not allow us to do that. Think of the precedence that set!
Sumner’s article reminded me of 2022, when we were told that a constitutional convention would lead to Outside, socialist influences controlling the convention process. And where did those $8 million come from for all the anti-con-con ads? Why, from the A-#1 outside, socialist influencer of all: George Soros.
They LOVE Alaska just the way it is: hatched by the Rockefeller think-tank at the U of Chicago “Public Administration Service”, which helpfully gave us a template for the con-con in 1955 — and with Uncle Ted illegally writing the statehood act from his Interior Dept office in the DC Beltway, back in the 50s.
Good information Bob. I like your closing paragraph! Thank you.
By design, RCV brings our unfettered egos, especially on the republican side. Whereas the left is much more organized. Remember the last congressional race where Alaska’s, BEEEEAAAAAARRRRRRR Doctor!, stepped down to allow Peltola a single option for the left? Then look at the last cycle for the “conservatives” as a great example. Sarah-come-lately’s bid diluted the vote, and she publicly stated that she was in and staying around, but to not “Rank the Red”. Look what happened….. Acolytes didn’t rank, and she took off as soon as the vote was tallied. Dahlstrom needs to commit to dropping if she comes in 2nd or worst on the 20th. Otherwise, she hands it to Peltola. And Dahlstrom had all this tome to fix a lot of election things….. What’s she done?! Nada…. I pick Nick Begich again! Get over the last name…… He’s not his uncles!
“………the left is much more organized……….”
Again, since this is a common, recurring statement, I ask…………why is this? Until this is answered HONESTLY, the bottom line will never change.
I think the left is much more organized because they can all agree to be thieving, cheating communists with one goal in mind…take down the united states in every way possible. The right has been too Christianly prim and proper and cannot even fathom how evil people can be. Well, that is melting away and the “conservatives” are stepping up. It is taking a while – I hope not too late for this fight.
Could the Left appear to be more organized because peer approval is terribly important to people who believe in nothing greater than themselves?
Michael T, check these videos out re RCV. A simple clear explanation: ‘https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XXdmq_pTr8A. Here’s another: ‘https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b2zwQp8AlYQ
Agree. With one stipulation. Ban or severely curtail campaign donations and ads from non-residents, national-level organizations and corporations. Tech billionaires, multinational corporations and dark money undermine and buy our elections.
“Less regulation and smaller government” as the best way to ensure freedom and prosperity is not a dog whistle for Dems. It used to be the RNC and CPAC’s mission. Even today in part 3 of the ramble that is the RNCs platform discusses deregulation.
I understand this audience believes if they just had the right guy or gal in the office every will be fine. I got news for you, history says otherwise. Our Sen Dan Sullivan has numerous times been on tbe wrong side of votes from Bideneconomics to Parental rights. The last admin had the house, senate, and prez and managed only to give corporations a huge tax cut while offering voters crumbs and adding 1000s of govt workers while incurring $8t of debt. The last admin ushered the mandates and more crony-capitalism by hand picking two vax companies.
The open primary allows for the voters to select from a wider field than just the politically connected or rich or pretty. Your lack in faith of voters is akin to the Dem party and their lack of a prez primary. Like them, you are concerned that the voters won’t pick the right guy or gal.
Hold your party selected primary full of party adherents. Then just add their name to the open primary. Easy peasy.
I understand it is hard to hear, but your party has failed us on most things from military oversight to budgetary spending to deregulation to reestablishing Freedom and Liberty as the cornerstone to this nation’s success. Returning to the political gatekeeper to chose a successor only provides for the lesser of two evils to the voters. Perpetuated poor governance.
If anything we, the people, should be demanding campaign finance reform. $250ish max from a person living within the district. Period. No RNC super pac. No Act Blue. This reduces the possibility of an elected official selling us out to out of state donations to secure reelection funding.
It’s about good governance for all, not about party domination.
“… [Jesse Sumner] supports open primaries and ranked-choice voting (RCV). These are systems that introduce more regulation, complexity, and government involvement in the electoral process. These statements by Sumner may not appear disingenuous to him, but they contradict the fundamental principles he claims to uphold.”
I think this is somewhat of canard. I don’t see that it adds much if anything in the way of new regulations or size of government. And how could government not be totally involved in the electoral process?
“Open primaries and RCV blur the lines between political parties, allowing non-Republicans to influence the outcome of Republican primaries and erode both party integrity and conservative values. In a closed primary, only registered Republicans would have a say in choosing their candidate, ensuring that the nominee aligns closely with the party’s ideology. Open primaries, on the other hand, can lead to the nomination of candidates who appeal to a broader, less ideologically consistent electorate, potentially weakening the party’s stance on key issues like small government and personal freedom.”
The majority of voters in Alaska are Independents. Why should taxpayers pay for closed party primaries they can’t vote in without being disingenuous about their own affiliations? If parties, which are private entities, want to have primaries prior to the public primary, to nominate a candidate of their choice, that is their business, but it shouldn’t be public business.
And why is it a problem if candidates who appeal to a broader electorate go on to the general election? Don’t you believe in “majority rules”? Oh…I forgot…this isn’t about maintaining a functioning representative form of government, is it?
“Open primaries and RCV are susceptible to strategic voting, where voters may rank candidates from opposing parties lower or manipulate their rankings to ensure a less desirable candidate from another party wins. This could result in candidates being elected who do not genuinely reflect the majority preference of conservative voters. Traditional first-past-the-post systems, where the candidate with the most votes wins, are straightforward and less prone to such manipulation, preserving the integrity of the electoral process.”
This is nonsense. In closed primaries, all that is necessary is to register in a party you are not really a member of to accomplish the same thing. And in RCV, only one of your rankings ends up counting, so if you rank someone you don’t like higher than someone you do like, you’re not helping yourself. It’s *much* less necessary to vote strategically than in first-past-the-post elections, where you have to vote for the person most likely to win that you can stand in order to avoid splitting the vote.
“RCV can be confusing for voters, particularly those who are not well-versed in the intricacies of the voting process.The added complexity may discourage voter participation or lead to spoiled ballots, particularly among older or less educated voters who might struggle with the ranking process. In contrast, a simpler voting system ensures that every voter can easily understand and participate in the electoral process, maintaining high levels of voter engagement and confidence in the outcomes.”
This is the “soft bigotry of low expectations.” People may not understand the tabulation process in gory detail, but they can understand how to rate candidates in the order of their preferences. The higher spoiled ballot rate in 2022 appears to be for reasons unconnected with RCV. Also, it appears voter participation went *up* to historic levels in 2022 when RCV was in use.
“Sumner argues that RCV benefits conservatives by preventing vote-splitting. However, RCV could also lead to unintended consequences, such as the election of moderate or less conservative candidates, as it encourages candidates to appeal to a broader base, potentially diluting conservative principles. In a state like Alaska, where the electorate is diverse and includes a significant number of non-partisan voters, RCV could lead to outcomes that do not fully align with conservative values, undermining the influence of the conservative base.”
Why don’t you just say you are opposed to democracy and fair representation? If the majority prefers moderate or less conservative candidates, what is the problem with those candidates being elected? That is, unless you think that a faction should be able to control everything if they are larger than other factions, even though they can’t attract a majority. I suspect this is at the root of most conservatives’ objections to RCV.
“The 2022 U.S. congressional race was won by vote splitting because conservatives who chose not to rank had to split their vote between choices on the conservative side.”
Exactly, voters chose not to rank other republicans, so they lost. Why not just learn how to use the system? Rank all the candidates you can accept and rank them higher than those you can’t. So difficult!
“In fact, the need for candidates to appeal to a broader audience in multiple rounds of voting could increase the incentive for dark money groups to influence voters through targeted messaging across various rounds. ”
Ranked choice voting, also known as Instant Runoff Voting, does not allow for time between rounds, so there is no advertising or influence “across various rounds.”
“Conservatives in Alaska should carefully consider whether these systems align with their long-term goals or whether traditional voting methods better serve the party’s interests and the state’s unique political landscape.”
Yes they should, they might learn how to use this system to their advantage…if they think they can attract a majority.
Couple of technical points.
1. Nobody really knows what the term “Republican form of government” means. First year law students are taught that the Supreme Court has not and will never decide a case on that ground. The clause is said to be non-justiciable.
2. Cornell Law School has an interesting summary of what little jurisprudence there is on it. “Government by the majority” is embedded into its history.
‘https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution-conan/article-4/section-4/meaning-of-a-republican-form-of-government
3. Before ranked choice voting Alaskans, on occasion, elected Senators by PLURALITY, not majority. Bob Bird, you had every right to challenge Ted Stevens. If RCV were in effect your votes would likely have ended up in Ted’s column, not Mark’s. RCV gives voters the choice to make a majority.
4. To those who said Ted only lost because of trumped up charges, one should remember that the DOJ politicals who greenlighted the prosecution were appointed by GW Bush and were legal conservatives. It was Eric Holder, who is no conservative that called BS.
5. Lisa Murkowski is no mediocre Senator. Objectively speaking. Hate her if you will but she “Gets S**t Done.” And if you were to ask her she would tell you Im no syncophant. I just tend to agree with her more often than the echo chamber.
6. Nowhere does the US Constitution gove the historic parties the right to appear on an election ballot. That is a function of state law, written by…. the parties.
7. Thank you Suzanne for permitting me to share my perspective. Hope the responses will be entertaining.
Comments are closed.