By TERRENCE SHANIGAN
Ranked Choice Voting (RCV) is one of the most deceptive systems ever imposed on Alaskans. This system is unconstitutional on multiple grounds and undermines democratic principles. It was sold by out-of-state sponsors to the public with misleading claims and implemented by a partisan Division of Elections director, raising serious concerns about neutrality and fairness.
RCV, rooted in century-old European systems, is used primarily for local and legislative elections in democratic socialist countries—not for electing heads of state. These nations prefer simpler two-round runoff systems, like Alaska’s former method, to avoid RCV’s complexity, manipulation risks, and tendency to elevate less-qualified candidates. Using RCV for presidential elections is unconstitutional. It conflicts with the Electoral College, which the progressive left opposes, and violates equal voting rights protections.
The Constitution mandates the Electoral College, not a redistributed popular vote, to elect the president. RCV alters how states achieve majority outcomes, directly conflicting with the Constitution’s allocation of powers to states and Congress. Alaska’s leaders must step up and challenge the certification of this election to protect constitutional integrity and electoral fairness.
RCV exacerbates disparities in how votes are counted through unequal voting power across states. Alaska’s implementation of RCV caused inconsistencies, while other states retained their traditional head-to-head systems, which interfered with vote processing and conflicts with redistribution for the Electoral College.
Ballot exhaustion—a common issue in RCV—occurs when voters do not rank enough candidates, and their ballot is excluded in later rounds, disenfranchising thousands of Alaskan voters in a national election and violating the principle of equal representation. The Division of Elections does not track the tens of thousands of exhausted or rejected votes, but the numbers are staggering.
RCV’s ballot exclusion and rejection rates are 10 times higher than head-to-head elections, according to the Social Science Research Network. The high ballot rejection rates violate the Equal Protection Clause and impose a burden on voters with its unjust system that undermines the democratic process.
The ability to rank multiple candidates in RCV, touted as granting more choice, actually gives unequal weight to votes in successive rounds when redistributed, violating the “one person, one vote” principle from the 1964 case Reynolds v. Sims. This unfair system undermines equal representation. In the United States, voting has always meant casting a single vote. Under RCV, voters, for losing candidates, effectively gain a second, third, or fourth vote, creating an unequal system that contradicts the democratic ideal of fairness and equality in the electoral process.
RCV ballots fail to provide write-in spots equal to the number of ranking slots, coercing voters into selecting only pre-listed candidates and restricting their ability to choose non-listed options freely. This limitation violates democratic principles, as Reynolds v. Sims stated: “The right to vote freely for the candidate of one’s choice is of the essence of a democratic society.” By offering insufficient write-in slots, RCV prioritizes pre-selected candidates, creating inconsistency, undermining fairness, and limiting voter representation. This coercive restriction unconstitutionally promotes undue influence and unequal treatment in the electoral process.
RCV’s sponsors knowingly misled Alaskans with deceptive messaging, targeting groups like Alaska Natives, rural residents, deployed military members, and mail-in voters who supported it most. Many Alaska Natives still lack the facts about RCV’s negative impacts on their tendency to vote by mail. It dilutes policy platforms and sidelines well-qualified leaders in favor of broadly “acceptable” but less capable candidates. If more voters understood how RCV undermines electoral quality and effective governance, they might reconsider supporting this flawed system that sacrifices strong leadership for superficial inclusivity.
The claim that open primaries are liberating and allow voters to choose freely is misleading. Open primaries encourage cross-party interference, where voters from one party strategically vote for weaker candidates in another party to manipulate outcomes. This undermines the integrity of the process. Closed or semi-closed primaries prevent such interference by limiting participation to registered party members, ensuring the selection process is aligned with party values.
I support competition and more parties, but open primaries undermine ideological coherence. Parties are not mere “clubs” but represent policy and core beliefs platforms, giving voters clarity about candidates’ ideologies. Open primaries blur these distinctions, reducing party labels to empty symbols. It would be like allowing Russia to choose the U.S. Olympic team—outsiders influencing decisions that should reflect our values. In the same way, RCV weakens the party system, dilutes voter understanding, and undermines the integrity of elections, making it harder for voters to align with candidates who truly represent their beliefs.
RCV sponsors claim to improve democracy, but their push to eliminate closed primaries erases the foundational philosophies that guide party candidates. It allows parties without broad appeal to exploit the system, diluting meaningful policy debates. The process of parties conducting their primaries and presenting candidates under their banners gives voters clarity and a basis for informed decisions.
Open primaries strip voters of this clarity, making party affiliations like “R” or “D” irrelevant. Voters should beware of systems that aim to destroy ideological accountability and the policy foundations that define representative democracy. RCV weakens democratic accountability because candidates are not directly accountable to their party’s voters, who are most invested in their success.
The claim that Alaskans are protected from outside money is a lie exposed by the reporting of liberal progressives from the Lower 48 spending nearly $13 million to manipulate Alaska’s electoral system, aiming to influence national elections. Alaska urgently needs election fiscal reform to protect our unique way of life from progressive D.C. special interests intent on colonizing us politically.
RCV has introduced countless ways to exclude ballots while relying on Dominion Voting Systems, raising serious concerns about data security, tabulation trustworthiness, and manipulation. Why did the Division of Elections insist on Dominion machines, and why did the lieutenant governor approve this purchase without public comment? This system fosters exclusion, blocks hand-counting, and erodes transparency.
RCV’s complexity leads to higher rejection rates, particularly for mail-in voters, amplifying disenfranchisement risks. The destructive impact of RCV has left Alaska with a system that prioritizes mediocrity and injects confusion over fairness and clarity. Returning to a strong, traditional head-to-head system is critical to restore trust, transparency, and integrity. Alaskans deserve better leadership to drive this change.
Terrence Shanigan is a lifelong Alaskan of Sugpiaq descent from Bristol Bay. He is also the co-founder of Mission Critical, is a combat veteran, an honored husband and a dedicated father.
