Not a single race in Alaska was changed due to ranked-choice voting

By
Suzanne Downing
-
69

Not many seats in the 2024 general election in Alaska went through the ranked-choice voting machine on Wednesday evening. Only nine were contested enough to get to the tabulation phase.

The presidency had already been decided, as more than 54% of voters chose Donald Trump.

For the congressional seat, Nick Begich had a lead going into the ranking process and he maintained that lead. Under the regular voting system, he would have won anyway.

Then we get to the Senate and House races for the Alaska Legislature. There were nine that had more than two candidates, and after the ranking took place, the leaders were still ahead. Not a single one of them flipped to the second-place person.

Take Senate Seat D, now held by Republican Jesse Bjorkman. He had 47.82% of the vote before ranking and edge over 50% after the Democrat votes from Tina Wegener were distributed to him. The final tally was Bjorkman 9,800 and Carpenter 8,113. Bjorkman had 54.74% of the final ranked-choice vote, but he would have won under the regular voting system as well.

The same can be said for Senate District F, where Sen. James Kaufman had the most votes before ranked-choice tally, as well as after the tally on Wednesday. The exact scenario played out for Senate District L’s Kelly Merrick, House District 6’s Rep. Sarah Vance, House District 28’s Elexie Moore, House District 36’s Rebecca Schwanke, House District 38’s Nellie Jimmie and House District 40’s Robyn Burke.

In other words, the primary and the general election provided the same results in Alaska as would have happened under normal election rules — one person, one vote.

The ranked-choice process itself was on the ballot as a ballot measure, but with the help of at least $15 million in Outside dark money pouring into Alaska to help Sen. Lisa Murkowski’s pet project, it failed to be repealed by 664 votes. Clearly, Alaskans do not prefer it, but they were told it would keep abortion legal and other strange promises.

One of the mailers sent by the Vote No on 2 group to convince Alaskans that ranked-choice voting saves abortion.

All the cost — in the millions of dollars of state money — and all the delay, yet the result was the same as it would have been under regular voting.

Alaska’s ballot counting marathon ends: Nick Begich declared winner, repeal of ranked-choice fails, and David Nelson pulls upset in District 18

69 COMMENTS

  1. So it looks like the winners won and the losers lost. That’s the way it’s supposed to be. I’m not sure why everybody got so bent out of shape over it. I guess fear does that to someone.

  2. We do not have to use RANK CHOICE. I only voted for one candidate in this last election.
    What’s Bullet Voting?
    Basically, bullet voting—also known as single-shot voting or plump voting—is a tactic used when voters who could vote for multiple candidates actually vote only for the one candidate whom they most want to see among the winners. Imagine a municipal election, for example, in which ten candidates are running for three open seats and voters can vote for the three candidates. A voter using the bullet voting tactic would cast a vote for only one candidate, not three. Ultimately, the election will produce three winners, yes, by using the bullet vote tactic the voter increases the total vote count of the candidate that he or she most wants included among the three winners—without increasing the vote count of any of the other nine candidates. By not casting those other two votes, the voter strategically avoids inadvertently helping any other candidate gain more votes than the candidate they truly prefer and whose win they want to secure more than any other.

  3. I think people figured out 1 person 1 vote still counts No need to rank But watch the Democraps try to change it

    • It stops 8% of the population from deciding who we get to pick and it ends the fund raising which primaries provide for major parties. All candidates pay filing fees and these fees usually fund primaries. But only dems and reps have primaries so why should other parties fund their primaries? Primaries are not required to select candidates. Each party can hold a nominating convention. When Trump was threatened with being kept off the ballot this was an alternative but I never saw it brought up.

  6. Look how long it took! RCV is still a ridiculous complication we don’t need and I believe intended to confuse and muddy the waters. We still need to get rid of it.

  7. This headline is very, very misleading. Our election results would absolutely look very, very different if we hadn’t been subjected to ranked choice voting. There are multiple races where fake Rs/RINOs could never have won a primary, but they won the final election because with two Rs on the November ballot, most of the Democrats crossed over to vote for the fake R, delivering a win to the other side. We would have real conservatives in charge if it wasn’t for ranked choice voting.

  8. Though I am not in favor of RCV, the game has to be played correctly. We don’t need multiple candidates for any party. The results would have been different if Dahlstrom stayed in. I am glad people listened and dropped out to benefit the state and the system. Congratulations to Begich and good riddance to Plotola.

  10. Agree. Alaskans need to refuse to “rank”. One person, one vote. I don’t ever recall a time in my entire voting history ever pondering a “2nd choice”.

  12. RCV did change the results, because it kept many Conservatives away from the polls, figuring the machines and RCV were rigged to elect more RINOs and Dems, which is what happened, not directly because of RCV, but indirectly, since its use in Alaska elections deters Conservatives from turning out to vote. The Conservatives who did not vote because of RCV are the very reason it wasn’t repealed, that, and it confused voters. For example, the voter who commented at the end of another article that they ranked their answers on the RCV question, answering “yes” to repeal, and then answering “no” for their second choice, as if the question was a RCV question. Also, how many voters didn’t vote on RCV because they were confused by it?

  13. I do not care if RCV did not change the outcome from election day. It is still an abomination that is easily manipulated, provides multiple votes to individuals, and it needs to go.
    I do not care if the conservatives, or the leftist benefit. It needs to go.
    .
    In 2022, the left side of the political aisle used RCV to get their desired outcome by playing the “candidate drop out” game. In 2024, the right side of the political aisle did it. Both sides manipulated RCV, and it was wrong both times.
    .
    RCV does nothing except destroy the voters faith in safe, secure, and transparent elections.

    • CBMTTek
      You are looking at this the same way as me .
      You loose control over your vote and give it to the political system.
      You don’t control who you want to vote for.

  14. Great, so I guess that means there’s no longer any point in spending money and effort trying to repeal it.

    • Ha ha ha! Nope, but wouldn’t that be great to focus on more important issues now? I’m sure it will be tried for again. How else can the background party people in charge control who can be voted for, who will toe the line of those with power and money the best. Heaven forbid that part can’t be controlled. That is why I like RCV. It’s working like it should. People can rank or not. Their choice. Perfect.

    • Really? Are you that superficial?
      In 2022, the left manipulated the voting system to their benefit. In 2024, the right manipulated the system to their advantage.
      .
      Leaving an election system that is so easily manipulated in place is the problem. Not who won this year.

      • With all due respect, it’s you that’s been manipulated by the false election fraud accusations floated by Trump and his co-conspirators.

        • If there was actually a serious investigation into the countless anomalies that happened in 2020 and 2022, and they turned up nothing, I would be more than happy to say the elections are fair and transparent. But, what do we get instead? Lawsuits, prosecution, name calling, etc…
          .
          Even in 2024, there is outright fraud going on right now. Election officials in PA are outright ignoring PA Law and a directive from the State Supreme Court because, from what I can tell, a Republican won the Senate seat.
          .
          Want to see these “conspiracies” disappear, support a full investigation and audit of the elections. But… you are not going to do that are you? Instead, you will just call people names and dismiss any of their concerns as conspiracy.

    • Whidbey doesn’t spend ANY money on others, but himself. He made this admission. What a goofy person he is ……dishonest, a tightwad, and a freaky commenter.

    • Not really. The worst damage from RCV comes way before Election Day. It inherently encourages politicians to play the field and not stand on principle or say what they believe in hope to get 2nd and 3rd place votes. Gets rid of primaries so that RINO’s can be beat rather than being elected by D’s.

    • That has absolutely nothing to do with RCV. The reason election results take so long is purely a function of the state’s permissive acceptance of absentee ballots. For better or worse, Alaska accepts absentee ballots 15 days after the election; this is the most lax policy in the nation. This is to accommodate Alaskans overseas ie. military and rural Alaskans who have unreliable postal service. You can love or hate RCV but please don’t spread misinformation.

  18. The Republican Party needs to do a caucus for its primary on its own, imho, like we did to vote in the presidential primary this past year.

    • I agree, and that should apply to all parties. I have never understood how the state got involved in paying for the selection processes of political parties, which are private organizations and not government affiliated.

    • Exactly! Until we return to honest elections, the rep party Members can and should choose who they want, before any state primary. It will clarify and ideally eliminate less favored persons. They (Murky) could still run as a two face, but being fully exposed as an adversary/saboteur to the party. Additionally, the rinos within would no longer receive party funding/support.

  19. Because the Republicans like Dahlstrom, McCarty dropped out leaving for the most part a binary choice. A non jungle primary might have advanced Goecker and not Merrick…?

  20. The RCV question, once again, got its “win” from absentee ballots that came in AFTER ELECTION DAY. Alaskans, once again, lost due to the cheat.

  21. That has absolutely nothing to do with RCV. The reason election results take so long is purely a function of the state’s permissive acceptance of absentee ballots. For better or worse, Alaska accepts absentee ballots 15 days after the election; this is the most lax policy in the nation. This is to accommodate Alaskans overseas ie. military and rural Alaskans who have unreliable postal service. You can love or hate RCV but please don’t spread misinformation.

  22. Prop 2 Yes vote won. Shenanigans ensued after the election and just like in 2020, the No vote won by the slimmest of margins at the very end. Funny how that happens.

  23. Not a single race? Not one ended up rigged? It’s almost as if every leftist voice in Alaska cried out in anguish and terror – including the voice of uber RCV-er Scott Kendall. You remember Scott, right? His outside dark-money friends could only manage a squeaker despite outspending the repeal effort by, what, a factor of 10? Keep weeping, Mr. Outside Dark Money. Alaska is ready for RCV Repeal Part Deux.

  26. Bad news is that we’re stuck with RCV for at least 2 more years.

    Good news is that we figured out at least a partial workaround: To have party candidates withdraw from the race following the August primary if they come in second or worse. Those candidates with discipline will ensure a normal (such as it is) election in Nov.

    I’d start planning right now for the Gov race in 2 years and replacing Lisa in 4. Cheers –

    • “Good news is that we figured out at least a partial workaround: To have party candidates withdraw from the race following the August primary if they come in second or worse.”
      .
      That, right there, is the problem with RCV. It encourages the parties to manipulate the system.
      .
      We need to get back to a system that is not so easily manipulated.

  27. Yes Suzanne, because republicans finally got smart and dropped out to not split the vote.

    The jungle primary end runs conservative primary candidates.

    • Bingo. Exactly right . We would have kicked Merrick to the curb in a R primary. It would force the hand of the “undeclared ” Democrats.

  28. Remember that the illegal initiative that foisted RCV on us included TWO elements – RCV and open primaries. Many have learned to bullet vote, but by removing this new and less fair method, we revert to one candidate per party coming out of the primary.

  29. RCV is not meant to change winners. It’s meant to change the incentives in all steps in the electoral process: who decides to run, how candidates campaign, lets voters vote for their favorite without benefiting candidates they don’t support, etc.

    In almost all cases (as you note) the candidate with the most first-choice votes eventually wins, often with a majority so no further rounds are needed. In those few cases where that is not the case, the eventual RCV winner is the one with the broadest support, which may not be the case with plurality voting. Indeed, plurality voting can elect someone who is disliked by a majority of voters (just ask the folks in Maine).

    Again, improving incentives, not changing winners, is the focus of RCV.

      • Elections are not about parties, elections are about candidates. You pick the one whose policies you like best. The price of stopping the extremists in the party you don’t like is stopping the extremists in the party you do like.

  30. RCV had nothing to do with the time it took to count all the votes. In 2002 the Alaska Republican party put up an initiative for RCV, it failed. Wonder why the party has a change of heart now?

  32. This is how RCV helps the dems, in the first round dems vote dem, republicans vote republican,greens vote their Green party and independents vote independent. Then if no candidate gets fifty percent they go to round two. The green and independent parties (which tend to lean left )will cast their second round vote to the dems. It’s just that simple.

Comments are closed.