By GOV. MIKE DUNLEAVY
In recent years, we’ve seen several changes to our state’s election system, including the adoption of ranked-choice voting (RCV) following the passage of Ballot Measure 2 in 2020. I want to speak plainly with you today about where I stand on this issue and why I believe Alaska should return to the traditional method of voting that served our state well for decades.
Let me start by acknowledging a simple fact: I have been elected governor under both systems. I won under the traditional voting method in 2018 and again under ranked-choice voting in 2022. So, my position on this issue is not about political gain or loss. It is about trust, clarity, and confidence in our electoral process.
Ranked-choice voting was pitched as a reform to solve a problem that, frankly, didn’t exist in Alaska. We were told it would reduce partisanship, promote consensus candidates, and make elections more fair. In reality, what we got was a system that confused voters, made outcomes less transparent, and created deep concerns about how votes are tabulated and who ultimately decides an election.
When I talk with Alaskans, whether in urban Anchorage, on the Kenai, or in rural communities from Bethel to Kotzebue, the message I hear time and again is the same: ranked-choice voting is complicated, and many people don’t trust it. That’s not just a perception problem; it’s a legitimacy problem. For any election system to work, voters must understand how it functions and believe in its fairness. RCV fails on both counts.
Here’s how. Under the traditional method, you vote for the candidate you support. The candidate with the most votes wins. It’s simple, straightforward, and easy to understand. But under ranked-choice voting, you’re asked to rank candidates in order of preference: 1st, 2nd, 3rd, and so on. If no candidate gets a majority of first-choice votes, a computerized process kicks in, redistributing ballots according to preferences until someone gets over 50%. While this may sound neat in theory, in practice, it’s left many Alaskans scratching their heads.
In some cases, the candidate who receives the most first-choice votes doesn’t win. That undermines a basic sense of fairness. In other cases, ballots are “exhausted” because voters didn’t rank every candidate. That means those votes are discarded in later rounds of counting, effectively silencing the voter. And because the final tally depends on a computer-run algorithm, we lose the immediacy and transparency of watching precincts report on election night.
To be clear, the concern here is not about technology itself, it’s about trust. People want to see the vote counted in a way they can understand. They want to be able to explain the result to their friends and neighbors without needing a flowchart or a computer science degree. That’s the kind of clarity that strengthens democracy. Ranked-choice voting moves us in the opposite direction.
We are one of only two states, along with Maine, that currently use ranked-choice voting in statewide elections. If this were such an effective and beneficial reform, why haven’t other states adopted it? Why haven’t we seen a groundswell of support from legislatures or voters elsewhere? The opposite has happened: 17 states have banned it. The truth is, most Americans—and most Alaskans—prefer a system they can understand and trust.
We should never make our elections more complicated than they need to be. Let’s remember what elections are fundamentally about: expressing the will of the people. That requires clarity, confidence, and transparency. The traditional voting system delivered that for decades in Alaska. Ranked-choice voting has not.
It is time to bring back a system that puts the voter first. One person, one vote. The candidate with the most votes wins. That’s how our democracy was designed to work. That’s how Alaskans expect it to work. And that’s the system I will support going forward.
I trust the good judgment of the people of Alaska. I believe when given the chance, we will return to a system that is fair, understandable, and grounded in trust. Let’s put the power of elections back where it belongs: in your hands, not in the hands of a computer algorithm.
Gov. Mike Dunleavy wrote this in his personal capacity for The Dailly Caller.
It is time!
Clean up the Alaska voter rolls.
End automatic voter registration along with the requirement to remove voters that have left Alaska.
Use only watermarked paper ballots.
Vote in person.
Vote with voter ID.
Hand counted by election officials with observers as soon as polls close.
Reported by precinct as soon as hand counts are completed and verified.
It should NOT take weeks to determine a “winner” within as state that has approximately 500,000 registered voters – with No transparency on the outcome! End mail in ballots which perpetuate voter fraud and ballot harvesting. End RCV which is NOT a legitimate voting system.
Well said!…And RCV should go away in every state!
The choose-only-one method is less legitimate than even RCV is. Vote-splitting does more harm to the integrity of elections than any other flaw or issue you can point to. If we don’t like RCV, fine, then let’s use something else to replace the hideous plurality method.
I’m no fan of his, but credit where due.
It’s amazing this actually has to be said out loud.
I agree with you, and with Stands Small, on this as well.
And at the same time, abolish the abomination of mail-in voting! The ONLY reason to mail-in voting is to encourage, and allow, the manipulation and corruption of the vote. And we all know which political faction is most willing, and involved, in doing that.
The Governor correctly points out the cons of RCV. However, he doesn’t address its pros.
The old system doesn’t permit candidates standing on issues of Truth, Justice, Accountability or Transparency to be a factor in our elections. The Democrats stand on the platform of the NEA and handouts while the Republicans stand on the platform of resource development. Ultimately the focus is on money and why our state is so corrupt.
How is that a positive for RCV?
Let’s say you are a Democrat, but like some of the stuff a Republican says/stands for. You get your RCV ballot, and have the choice of the NEA and handouts, or resource development. Only one candidate can win, so who do you vote for? I will guess the overwhelming majority of the time (greater than 90%) you will vote for the Democrat first, and likely second as well, before voting a Republican.
.
How does that differ from conventional one person, one vote per office?
How does this RCV system permit “candidates standing on issues of Truth, Justice, Accountability or Transparency to be a factor?” Is that not a factor already? (HINT: It is)
.
“Ultimately the focus is on money…”
Just like in every election ever held at any time in human history. But… RCV will change that focus? Nope. Not a chance. All it will do is allow the voter to rank the candidate based on which is promising the largest handouts from the public treasury.
.
Or are you talking about campaign funds, because the last two elections proved that wrong. Tons of money was spent to ensure the candidate preferred by the establishment won.
.
Honestly, I am not seeing the pros here.
CBMTTek, using your hypothetical, if the Democrat’s first choice (for a Democrat) gets eliminated then their vote goes to their second choice (for a Republican who campaigns on TJAT). That way, the Republican has a better shot of winning. A candidate with fewer initial first place votes can win with later preferences.
Under your hypo, regardless of the outcome, the Democrat now identifies a little closer with the Republican party. Bipartisanship is fostered – even if the Democrat candidate wins he may feel the need to appear more reasonable to his constituent and not vote in lockstep with the NEA on every single issue.
Don’t get me wrong, I’m still on the fence. However, I did sign the petition to get the repeal of RCV on the ballot. I’ve also been encouraging other citizens to sign the petition and engage in public debate on my Juneau radio show, Problem Corner on Wednesday’s from 11-12.
I’m a huge fan of citizen initiatives as they get more people engaged in political discourse. We need to increase our low voter turnout percentages. Too many people think either their vote doesn’t matter, they don’t identify with the leading party candidate, or they just figure whoever gets elected will sell out anyway.
Now if the Republican Party was to not only make Justice a key plank in their platform at all times, but ENFORCE it, that would make me vote against RCV. But that’s not likely to happen. One of our big problems is that the Alaska Republican Party is weak, even a joke to many. Just ask Shower, Hughes and Myer.
What we have is a legislature filled with politicians who call themselves Republican, yet kowtowed to the NEA and voted to over-ride Dunleavy’s veto a few weeks ago. I was in the gallery that day and Elam was all smiles. Unbelievable. Some Republican districts have issued sanctions but I don’t see it being done on a widespread basis. Going back to the old system of voting doesn’t do anything about the defections.
The other problem is that too many Republican leaders don’t care about the grand jury, let alone Justice. Some districts tried to get resolutions in favor of grand juries passed last year, but that went nowhere. IMO rejecting resolutions in favor of strong, independent grand juries is to endorse corruption.
Just look at all the trouble spots in Alaska’s Republican administration that I’ve identified in MRAK over the last 2-3 years. The Attorney General’s office under Dunleavy has done everything it can to put illegal controls on the grand jury instead of standing up for its independence.
My scenario had the dem voting for another dem second, but your statement is not off the mark enough to dispute it on that minor error.
.
“Under your hypo, regardless of the outcome, the Democrat now identifies a little closer with the Republican party.”
No, they do not. If they alter their position in any way, it will be just enough to make it to the election, then they will return to their current position within the spectrum.
Just like now.
.
“Bipartisanship is fostered”
Not a single good thing has ever come from “bipartisanship.” There, I said it. And, I stand by it. Oh… sure, the government spent trillions of dollars they did not have in a bipartisan manner, but get real.
.
And, no, the winner will not feel the need to converse with the loser. If they do so, they were going to do so regardless of the system used in the election. Humans just do not work that way. How about this as a demonstration of what I am talking about:
“What we have is a legislature filled with politicians who call themselves Republican, yet kowtowed to the NEA and voted to over-ride Dunleavy’s veto a few weeks ago”
(Your words.)
See, the Republicans said exactly enough to curry votes, and then did whatever they wanted to.
.
I am not kidding about this. Every positive you identify from RCV requires humans to change their nature. And, history is abundantly clear on this front, humans do not change that easily.
That’s because you don’t want to see them. There are none so blind as those who will not see.
People chose RCV and it will remain.
Mail-in allows people to vote who otherwise could not for a whole host of reasons. And inclusivity is what voting is all about. I love it for that, and other reasons.
So, you cannot point me to a positive of RCV either.
Got it.
.
As to your statement about mail in ballots, if that was reality, why does voter participation drop when a city goes mail in voting?
Wow. So brave. How about acknowledging that proposition 2 probably didn’t pass and how we never got a forensic audit for it or the “close” recall effort in 2024? How about acknowledging that mail in voting is a complete joke. Or even better, how about acknowledging that there is no way that the machines are safe and we have zero need for them? Or how about our dirty voter rolls?
Waiting until you’re almost out of office to weakly tackle the foundational problem in the state and our country shows why Dunleavy was allowed to “win” his elections and will likely walk on to a bigger role in the GOP.
With RCV whoever programs the computers decides the election.
And, it does not matter if that is reality or not.
The average person has absolutely no way to confirm the results of RCV. None. And, without that transparency, the public will not trust RCV and it will assume you are correct.
.
I do not trust RCV. And, because the process is so computer dependent, I agree with you, the program actually decides, not the voters.
Even old school computer systems have concerns see Dominion.
Ballot data is made available to the public, and if there’s any fraud or any other problem like a spoiler, it will be noticed as it was in the AK US House special election in August 2022.
I have a political science degree and I do not understand it, particularly when voiding votes altogether as the computer ranks ballots. If it confuses me it sure must confuse nearly everyone else.
The result. You have one of the most divisive, contrary Senators serving. She is the sad product of the 17th Amendment and the pitfalls of the progressive movement championed by one of our worst presidents, Wilson.
I appreciate Gov. Dunleavy’s comments on the ills of RCV. Wish he had spoken this last year. One thing he left out was how the pro RCV folks rolled this out as “getting rid of dark $”. That’s rich, because pro RCV’rs ARE the dark outside $. To the tune of approx.15 million $. The grassroots anti RCVR’s had a bit over 100k. Yet on the flyers, the dark outside money crowd had the gall to lie and call us political “elites”. Really??? Never trust liars.
Very well said. One voter, one vote. RCV encourages in-party fighting right up to the general election. Dems figured this out quickly and limited candidates internally to one person race. Republicans are too independent or simply leadership too ineffective, and they fall into the trap every time. Let’s purge RCV once and for all. Alaskans deserve a trustworthy system and clear race winners.
I agree. Lose rank choice voting. Zac
Go figure, the Governor could try to educate voters and build trust, but it’s apparently easier to sit on the sidelines and sow distrust. Take the PJ Olson comment that “whoever programs the computers decides the election.” The Governor is clearly not interested in trying to inform the public.
You seem to be overly optimistic about how easy it is to inform the public.
Over the last four years, numerous attempts have been made, at great cost, to educate the public on RCV and how to vote under the system. Did you not get the mailers? Did you not hear the ads? Yet, the confusion remains.
Do you really think a column by the Governor will somehow make everyone understand? Do you? Be honest.
.
Your comment is naive. It assumes people are actually paying attention, or care enough to listen and learn.
And, that is the painful truth.
Sometimes, a Republican voter will vote for a Democrat as 2nd or 3rd choice, but the other side chants “Vote Blue No Matter Who”. This is why the Democrats like RCV. The whole thing about saying they need to educate the voters, or that those who don’t like RCV just aren’t smart, is insulting.
Thank you, Governor Dunleavy, for your comments and support to return Alaska to its original, traditional voting system. Ranked-choice voting is leftist corruption designed to mostly favor leftist candidates. It needs to be abolished in Alaska, and hopefully nationally.
Thank you for putting it out there! RCV is an unfair system. It is a tool for manipulating an election.
Totally agree with your opinion Governor; hope you accomplish doing away with ranked-choice voting before the next election. Thank You!
Also doing away with daylight saving time in AK
The Governor is correct on all points.
RCV is created to solve a problem no one was actually suffering from. And, no… sorry… it does not result in elected representatives that reflect the majority of the population. It results in elected representatives that the majority of the population could tolerate. It is selected the best of the worst, not the best of the best.
.
Sorry voters. There is no election system that will make everyone happy. It does not matter how many candidates you rank. in reality, a majority of the population will not be happy with the results.
“There is no election system that will make everyone happy.”
And this is one, among many reasons, why government always and everywhere needs limits on its power. The problem isn’t that one group (majority) gets who they choose, and the other group doesn’t. The problem is the power that is then capable of being wielded through that outcome.
We call that the 2nd Amendment.
There is limit on power at the Federal Level it is called the United States Constitution. If they would follow the constitution and not try and mandate so many Laws at the Federal Level we would limit the power of government. The Constitution does an outstanding job at that by stating anything no covered under this constitution is handled by the states “10th Amendment”
It’s a dumb claim by proponents of RCV that it always elects a majority winner since no voting method can guarantee one if the election has more than two candidates. Whether a majority of voters are happy with election outcome does not matter; the only realistic goal is to elect the most preferred one. Never use or demand a majority criterion.
The most “preferred” candidate?
Or the least despised one?
Seems that you are suggesting that any one who is despised more than the least despised one should be elected. If there’s no majority winner, the best alternative may be the preference winner, which is also know as the Condorcet winner. The highest utility winner is another option that I suppose would be acceptable to overall voters, but if there is no majority winner, the only other option I know of besides Condorcet or utility winners is to choose via random selection.
Not suggesting that, but I can see where you get that impression.
.
Now, why is there some requirement for a majority vote? If there are 10 candidates, and one of them get 20% of the vote and the rest split the other 80%, I do not see a problem with the person with 20% holding that office.
.
Somehow, governments have been elected, and run to a certain level of effectiveness without requiring a clear majority candidate win throughout history. Suddenly, that is not acceptable?
.
in 2020 when this monstrosity was first on the ballot, there were ads with someone saying if they do not have this flavor drink, get me that one, and if that one is out, this third choice is OK. RCV is absolutely NOTHING like that, and neither is your claim about the alternative preference winner.
.
Why? Because a drink, or an alternate choice of meal is a single event, and likely the person consuming that product is equally happy with either. But, the consequences of elections are multi-year, and have long term financial and legal impacts.
.
Finally, why “…the only other option I know of besides Condorcet or utility winners is to choose via random selection.”
Why not choose via the conventional method where the candidate receiving the most votes wins, regardless of percent of votes received? What is wrong with that?
The problem with the conventional choose-only-one method is that it is horribly flawed by vote-splitting, and its use has thus brought about dysfunctional and undemocratic election systems with things like sore loser laws, and also creates dysfunctional (i.e., unrepresentative) governments. Vote-splitting does more harm to the integrity of elections than any other flaw or issue you can point to. If we don’t like RCV, fine, then let’s use something else to replace the hideous plurality method.
By the way, simple plurality voting indeed is a preference system, but one of the major problems with it is that if no candidate gets >50%, we are left guessing as to which one really is the most preferred one. This uncertainty is what makes ridiculous and laughable so many people’s criticism that RCV sows doubt and lack of confidence.
“The problem with the conventional choose-only-one method is that it is horribly flawed by vote-splitting”
Do you know of a system that is immune to that? No, RCV isn’t, no run-offs are not. Tell me, what system prevents that in any way?
.
“…let’s use something else to replace the hideous plurality method.”
Still not seeing what is so hideous about it.
.
“…if no candidate gets >50%, we are left guessing as to which one really is the most preferred one.”
No, we are not left guessing in any way. The candidate that got the most votes is the most preferred one. I am not sure why that is in question.
.
And, why does the elected candidate have to have better than 50% of the vote? Explain that one to me? Four candidates on the ballot, and one wins with 45% of the vote. So? Does that mean 55% of the voting population did not “prefer” that candidate? You are making a big assumption here, and frankly it is incorrect.
.
So far, the only thing I have gotten from this exchange is that you do not like a plurality outcome. I will not say your opinion is wrong, but I do think your reasons for holding that opinion are not well supported.
If no candidate gets >50% in a plurality election, we indeed cannot tell which one is the most preferred. It is a matter of mathematics; it’s a fact! It seems you do not understand vote-splitting or what a spoiler scenario is, and you seem to miss the concept that such a failure is much less likely under the instant runoff format, and much less likely under many other voting methods, too.
OK, I will repeat it slowly.
The candidate that gets the most votes is the preferred candidate.
.
This is a really, really, really simple concept. I do not understand why you cannot grasp it.
.
Why does a candidate HAVE to get better than 50% of the vote? They do not.
.
Look, you seem to think RCV is a solution to a problem that frankly, not a lot of people see as a problem. F-ing around with the voting schemes when they have worked just fine for centuries is not needed, and unwanted.
.
Oh… I know… they have not worked fine in your world because sometimes a candidate wins the seat with less than 50% of the vote. Who cares??? Seriously, getting more than 50% of the vote is not some assurance of good governance.
.
I need look no further than every politician in office at any level of government anywhere in the world to prove that. The overwhelming majority of them received better than 50% of the vote, and frankly their constituents think they suck.
Re: “The candidate that gets the most votes is the preferred candidate.”
Nick Begich proves how wrong that assumption is! He was the most preferred one in August 2022, the ballot rankings prove that, yet he received the least number of 1st rankings.
Re: “you seem to think RCV is a solution to a problem that frankly, not a lot of people see as a problem.”
I don’t like using RCV as a solution for the vote-splitting problem. Approval voting would be better. A lot of people indeed consider vote-splitting to be a devastating problem. I believe that those who don’t are blind and ignorant!.
Re: “Why does a candidate HAVE to get better than 50% of the vote? They do not.”
Yes, I agree. Don’t use a majority criterion. _IF_ we are using simple plurality and no candidate happens to get >50%, then we are truly guessing. I am NOT saying a candidate must get 50%. What I am saying is that simple plurality voting is CRAP! Throw it in the trash can!
I agree. How soon can it be removed? IIRC Trump recently abolished RCV in national elections, can you (Dunleavy) do the same here in God’s country?
Bravo! Let’s get it done Governor! Do it now! Don’t forget voter ID.
Your ‘Oosik Skin’ is showing Dunleavy. How many YEARS did you and the AK Dept of Law sit on that Election Report that you suddenly disclosed this year, three days prior to FBI Patel saying he was going after election fraud at the state level? How many YEARS did you force anyone who wanted to read that Election Report, including elected legislatures, to sign an NDA and then turn around and make sure they understood your AKDOL would sue if they disclosed the fraud in the election? The RCV is low-hanging fruit that you throw out there to distract from the real issue that is plaguing Alaska. The Rot is like Cancer, Systemic across the State of Alaska government.
You KNEW there was a problem with the vote YEARS ago. You Did Nothing To Fix It. Corruption in the State of Alaska is off the charts due to you and the AKDOLS’ criminal incompetence, and you want to Stand Small now and act like you care about Alaskans on your way out.
What a Joke. Except it is not funny to anyone except for you, the AK DOL, the Judicial Branch, and anyone connected financially to it. It has been one big laughing & mocking game for all of you sitting in government, making bank while the Alaskan People suffered.
Well, Karma has its way of swinging back around and hitting one right where they can not miss the lesson. In the Face.
Agree! But don’t get me started on the huge cesspool of corruption at the Alaska Department of Law under the direction of Attorney General Treg Taylor. And guess who wants a promotion to governor!
Well said. I just hope you’re right about karma but I have to admit I am low on hope
Ok David Ignell aside 😅 – truly how many people really want RCV? Before the last election where it bizarrely was upheld, possibly due to the confusion of the ballot wording, not a single person I talked to, more than dozens, was favorable toward it. That was a mix of Republican leaning and Democrat leaning. So who the heck voted to retain? I find it mind boggling we still have it. I suspect there is ample corruption in our elections beyond just RCV. Our voter rolls, cheat by mail, ballot harvesting and RCV. Add in the electronic ballot counting machines and the weeks it takes to count ballots. What could possibly go wrong.
Disagree
That mantra about RCV being complicated is most prevalent within the repub party. The voters can figure it out. To say otherwise is to say they are dumb, which obviously isn’t the case.
To think RCV would fix historical poor candidate options within 2 election cycles is beyond naive bordering stupid.
Less than 43% of voters comprising Dems and Repubs voters dictate the final ballot has provided us with a forced vote for the Lesser of Two Evils. Further the other 57% voters were disenfranchised.
RCV is not perfect but allows for every flavor of Alaskan voter a candidate that best represents them. Add in the open primary that allows any Alaskan to actively participate in the governance of this great state. This bypasses the repub and dem gatekeepers providing an opportunity to escape the paradigm of the Lesser of Two Evils.
There are refinements and improvements that should be done. The presidential primaries, vote counting timeline and hard ballots for hand computing are three easy issues that should addressed.
RCV is but one facet to improve our representation, clearly addressing campaign finance reform is necessary to prevent party and corporate purchase of our representatives and elected officials.
“Further the other 57% voters were disenfranchised.”
Ahhh… the leftist talking point, which fails completely in Alaska.
.
The only time someone can claim they are disenfranchised was during the Primaries. (Pre RCV). And that claim is ridiculous, because any voter, regardless of party affiliation could request any of the three available ballots. Want to vote the Democrat primary when you are a registered Republican? Not a problem, request that ballot.
Can you point on the doll where the disenfranchising happened?
.
At no time was any registered voter in Alaska told they cannot vote (unless they had already cast a ballot and were trying to cheat).
Re: “It is time to bring back a system that puts the voter first. One person, one vote. The candidate with the most votes wins.”
RCV does not violate one person, one vote, and furthermore, the one with the most votes may NOT be the most preferred one, and may have won via a spoiler scenario. Does the governor really not understand what a spoiler scenario is?
I’m pretty sure the legislature could fix this at anytime, they won’t but they could. Maybe this will be a part of the next special session, so they can avoid it as well as the miserable state of education. At least they can put it on the record that they do not want to do the job they campaigned for and were elected to do.
Brilliant analysis, Mike!
I would like to see voting similar to our electronic banking or IRS accounts, which are very secure.
I’d write more, but I have to go burp a baby.
Great article governor! But you forgot to mention the importance of the Primary election. In the case of Lisa Murkowski, she would NOT have been elected if a Primary were held. And this is what the Democrats REALLY dont want. Bring back the Primary, and Lisa will be history, rather than making history.
It is revealing that Governor Dunleavy has been talking to Alaskans for four years about ranked-choice voting, which a majority of voters have affirmed their support for twice, and the message hears hears “time and again is the same: ranked-choice voting is complicated, and many people don’t trust it.”
Ignore for a second the question of whether or not RCV is a wise choice. It is a choice that a majority of Alaskans have made twice. How is our governor so out of touch that he never hears messages from THOSE voters?
Correction a majority of Alaskans who vote, most Alaskans do not vote and only a small majority of registered voters actually turnout to vote in Presidential election years, during midterms the turnout rate drops even further frequently with less than half of registered voters taking part.
“Tank the Rank!”
SIGN THE PETITION!
Yes, we know RCV is rotten to the core and that it was created by Murkowski’s Campaign Manager to relieve her of competing in a Republican Primary that she can no longer win because she has become part of the DC swamp, very little good for the people of Alaska and doesn’t even hide thr fact anymore that she isn’t a conservative, let alone a Republican. Now, we Alaskans are fighting for our political lives and RCV is in the way. It has to go!
Thanks for this article, Big Mike. I wish you had “stood tall for Alaska” 5 years ago before this sneaked through.
1. The appropriately labeled BM#2 was unconstitutional. It violated the requirement of only one issue per measure. Remember, it changed the primary system AND added RCV.
2. Unfortunately the AK Supreme Court allowed it to remain on the ballot.
3. You should have spoken out in 2020, but did not.
4. You could have pushed the legislature to remove it, but did not.
Sadly, fighting RCV will not be your legacy. Allowing it is.
The traditional republican vs democrat voting system is lame.
Dunleavy and conservatives love the Republican closed primary system where 20% of the population controls elections
Frank,
Extra credit for you if you can tell the class what percentage of the population controls the elections under rank voting.
Every election year in August, the State of Alaska has a primary election. Every single registered voter can vote in that primary. Every single one.
Previous to passage of BM-2 in 2020, the primary had a choice of three ballots, Republican, Democrat, and Initiatives only. (surely you voted in the primary, Frank?) Any voter could select any of the ballots.
Now, it is the jungle primary. Where all candidates, regardless of party affiliation appear on the ballot.
.
So… where is the 20% control you are talking about?
The candidate most preferred by all voters in the general election for a particular office may be a Republican, but that person may be eliminated from the general election ballot because he or she loses the Republican primary. 85% of elections are decided in one primary or the other (general election does not matter), and if the party participation rate is 20% of eligible voters, then Frank’s point is valid.
And?
If the registered Republicans do not want a particular person representing them on the general election ballot, that candidate should not appear on the ballot with a (R) following their name.
.
There are other ways to get on the ballot. Run a write in campaign, run as the candidate for a third party, run as an independent.
.
And, again. Where is this primary where 80% of the voters are excluded? That only 20% of registered Republicans vote in the primary is not an indictment of the system, it is a black eye on the voters.
Sore loser laws and prohibitive ballot access rules for 3rd party and unaffiliated candidates indeed do substantial harm to the integrity of elections, so that is definitely an indictment of the design of the primary/general election system.
When did AK ever have prohibitive ballot access rules?
The Democrat ballot allowed candidates from 3rd parties representation. Now, the jungle primary allows anyone who scrapes up a small number of signatures representation. Where is the prohibitions?
.
And, news flash. The primaries are there to tell the Parties who their voters want to represent the Party in the general election. In my opinion if you are not a registered member of that Party, you should have no say in who the Party selects to represent them. What to make that fair, print ballots for all the parties and the independents. Do not screw around with an election system that has been in place and working for centuries.
Brain:
Read Bob Bird’s column on today’s MRAK. (Saturday, Aug 23).
That is EXACTLY what the parties are going to do, which negates your claims/logic/reasoning.
.
Sorry to say it, but you are overly optimistic at best, and downright ignorant of human nature at worst.