Michael Tavoliero: Why I’m against open primaries and ranked-choice voting for Alaska conservatives

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.