By MICHAEL TAVOLIERO

The repeal of ranked-choice voting will be a question on the November ballot in Alaska.

Ranked-choice voting fundamentally contradicts conservative principles by introducing complexity and expanding bureaucratic control. That, in turn, undermines both electoral transparency and the foundational concept of a republican form of government.

Alex Gimarc’s spot-on Must Read Alaska column discusses the characteristic comparisons of organizations such as the Conservative Majority Fund. Frankly, this organization strives to connect local and state political adventures to D.C. power and control models, which ensure the continuation of federal centralization and the erosion of states sovereignty.

As contemporaneous evidence, please look at the Nancy Dahlstrom campaign and its top-down support.

From a conservative perspective, the so-called Conservative Majority Fund is a classic example of neo-conservatism and, at the least, an effigy for the continued expansion of the federal bureaucracy. 

Ranked-choice voting represents a deliberate departure from conservative values, which prioritize simplicity, transparency, and accountability in governance. By making it harder to verify election outcomes and necessitating a move away from transparency, RCV risks placing too much power in the hands of unelected bureaucrats and the election-related technology they oversee, thereby undermining the constitutional guarantee of a republican form of government.

The U.S. Constitution guarantees every state a “Republican Form of Government,” as outlined in Article IV, Section 4. This promise is rooted in the idea that elected officials should be directly accountable to voters. RCV complicates this relationship by allowing for election outcomes where a candidate who was not the first choice of most voters can still win.

Additionally, RCV tends to favor mediocre candidates over those with strong values. As evidence, look at the election of Mary Peltola to Congress.

Public trust in computerized voting processes is at an all-time low, particularly after the 2020 presidential election, where concerns about vote-switching with computer driven voting machines were widespread. RCV’s complexity makes it very suspect, leaving contested and tight elections unresolved to the public’s satisfaction.

With that said, RCV requires sophisticated software to sort and analyze votes, creating a significant dependency on computerized systems. This reliance raises concerns about whether votes are being processed correctly, as there is no straightforward way to verify the results, particularly when compared to traditional ballots that only need to be counted once, not counted, sorted, and counted again.

Ranked-choice voting is a pathway to dehumanization by subconsciously emphasizing vote aggregation, rather than candidate principles and values. The mechanical nature of RCV reduces the importance of individual candidates’ integrity and policy stances, instead prioritizing how votes are mathematically tallied and redistributed.

Such a system distances voters from the core values and beliefs that typically guide their choices, potentially leading to a more impersonal, numbers-driven approach to elections.

From a constitutional perspective, ranked-choice voting may also infringe upon First Amendment rights, particularly the right to free political expression through voting. The system’s complexity can deter voter participation and engagement, suppressing voter turnout and clarity. Is this a violation of the right to freely express political preferences? 

The U.S. Supreme Court has emphasized that political speech must prevail against laws that would suppress it, subjecting such laws to “strict scrutiny.” It is questionable whether RCV meets this burden or if it suppresses political speech.

While ranked-choice voting was adopted through a plebiscite in Alaska, voters were misled by promises to eliminate voter polarization and dark money influences. The Guarantee Clause of the U.S. Constitution, ensuring a republican form of government, is challenged by RCV’s potential to produce election outcomes that do not reflect the majority’s first-choice preferences.

The implementation of RCV in Alaska affects a wide range of groups, from voters who must navigate a more complex system to political parties, candidates, and unelected officials who gain greater control over the electoral process. This debate is not just about voting mechanics but also about broader principles of democracy, representation, and governance.

Quoting Alex Gimarc’s noteworthy column, “Any time someone tells you a change in election law is for your own good, will simplify anything, or will save money, don’t believe them.”

I say, if you’re looking to employ more unelected bureaucrats, ranked-choice voting is the camel’s nose under the tent of public service employment opportunity.

This upcoming election may demonstrate what real conservatives think about our voting process and its sacredness to liberty.

Michael Tavoliero is a resident of Eagle River and writes for Must Read Alaska.