Editors Note: Updated with stylistic rewriting of conclusion.
Political parties represent the aspirations of the people within them. They are the backbone of democracy, both a catalyst for change and a bulwark of tradition. Citizens can choose to be in or out; but the latter course defers our country’s fate to the few. A robust democracy is restless, subjecting societal values to constant attack. The lessons of “The Hunger Games”—and 250 years of national exceptionalism–are instructional: Embrace freedom; define and defend humanity’s best hope; fight for it; and form alliances to overcome the dark forces of destruction.
When political parties do these things, they win elections and influence the course of history. This is one reason we are a great nation. The U.S. is now and has been for 250 years a nation built on two-party opposition and competition for ideas. This system has led directly to prosperity for our citizens, global military dominance, and justice before the law. Left-leaning protests notwithstanding, history proves that freedom and democracy are forces for good and have served to reduce misery and destruction like no other in history.
And yet, history also proves the tendency of those in power to consolidate their control. Many regimes still exist which suppress or outlaw opposition parties. Americans are fortunate indeed, as the presence of dissent in the form of a vigorous, two-party politic is the single most defining ingredient to freedom and world peace known to history.
When parties lose their purpose, or fail to inspire the people, we should worry. When 40-50% of voters are undeclared or independent, or worse do not even vote, this reflects malaise. Yes, our nation is polarized, but for much of America’s 250-year lifespan, we have experienced far worse. What is new is a pervasive distrust in political parties to remedy division and to unite people.
Trump changed this for Republicans but not in a party-driven manner. The brand is now MAGA and Trump himself, not the Republican party. His persona has replaced the platform, as it did Rhonna McDaniels as chair of the RNC. Prior to Trump, national party platforms divided on major topics like abortion and nationalized healthcare, but no more. Today, Trump’s daily agenda is the RNC platform and opposition to everything Trump is the DNC platform.
Here in Alaska, we have witnessed so many examples of party drift that it is impossible to list them–from the Walker-Mallot disaster to the Dunleavy recall; and from Joe Miller’s primary win and Murkowski’s subsequent write-in campaign, to modern-day Republican majorities that flip to Democrat-controlled coalitions. In the 2022 U.S. Senate race, Kelly Tshibaka had both Trump’s and the Alaska Republican Party’s endorsement, yet the National Republican Senatorial Committee issued an attack campaign against Tshibaka, seriously undermining the brand. Rank Choice Voting (RCV) squeaked into law amid this confused state of affairs, effectively neutralizing one of the most powerful expressions of party purpose and unity—the party primary.
While the cause of party drift is complex, the solution is not—restore local empowerment through district endorsements and party primaries. If the people are going to preserve their status as the ultimate source of political power, it will come through grassroots activism at the district party level. Further, if political parties are going to remain a potent force in elections, party leaders must clearly distinguish between what they legally CANNOT do from what they CHOOSE NOT to do. For example, it is the party— not the law or Rank Choice Voting— that is preventing party primaries in Alaska.
Here is what Judge Pallenberg stated in the 2017 case State of Alaska v. Alaska Democratic Party:
“… a state may not constitutionally legislate the means by which a political party goes about achieving its goals and that it is up to a political party to determine “the boundaries of its own association.” Because a political party’s associational rights include its ability to make decisions about internal affairs, [state] laws that impact a political party’s internal structure, governance, and policy-making are generally unconstitutional.”
The Alaska Republican Party— or any party, even a new one— can engage in all of the following activities: develop its platform; decide who its members are and by what criteria they can be both included or excluded, with narrow exceptions; develop criteria for registration (even control registration) and participation in the governance of the party; interview, vet and endorse (or not) candidates for office; develop an internal means to promote candidates, and fundraise.
How ironic it is that Alaska’s, California’s and Washington’s blanket primaries were all found unconstitutional under California Democratic Party v. Jones, because they “force political parties to associate with and have their nominees, and hence their positions, determined by those who, at best, have refused to affiliate with the party and, at worst, have expressly affiliated with a rival”.
Sound familiar, Alaska?
In affirming Pallenberg’s ruling, Alaska’s Supreme Court was emphatic in its view that while the state is limited in its reach, a political party’s right to manage its internal affairs is sacrosanct. Citing precedent under Tashjian v Republican Party of Connecticut, our Supreme Court stated that the right of association “necessarily presupposes the freedom to identify the people who constitute that association…” and that this right “…is perhaps nowhere more important than during a primary election,” because that is the point at which “political parties select the candidates who will speak for them to the broader public and, if successful, will lead their political party in advancing its interests.”
In the Tashjian case, SCOTUS had earlier concluded that:
“A political party possesses the same right to associate with candidates of its choosing as it does to participate with voters of its choosing. A political party’s right to associate necessarily includes the ability to identify the individuals with whom to associate.”
Suffice it to say our courts are aligned on the principle that the state cannot limit a party’s ability to select the candidate whom its primary voters believe will fare best among Alaska’s unique population of voters. The Alaska Republican party’s “closed” primary was, and is today, constitutional.
Alaskans who want accountability from politicians should embrace principle over personality, and state party endorsements over fake labels. Party primaries—not RCV—is the way to expose political duplicity. Misappropriation of party labels is hard to control, but what the party stands for and rejects is easy to control. Trump is no king, but he is decisive. He is fearless, unfiltered, crass with his criticism; but he is an effective fighter who knows an ally from an enemy. He is relentless in pursuit of purpose.
Vigilance assumes values. Action assumes leadership. Political parties are not a distortion of political power. As the expression of citizen values, they are the source of it. Like the judiciary, where the law can be determined by a single person, one voter or candidate matters. Dissent, carefully reasoned, can change history. Overturing Wade v. Roe took a generation. Today, our right to freely associate is protected to the degree political parties use and enforce their rights. Party primaries are a choice, and a protected right under law.
No party can promote constitutional rights without understanding the impacts of seminal decisions that define our rights, such as the 2008 case Washington State Grange v. Washington State Republican Party. Alaskans should read the dissent of judges in cases decided by a single vote, for example Eastaugh’s and Bryner’s in State v. Green Party of Alaska (2005). The concept of “stricter scrutiny” used to establish the pre-eminence of state vs. federal constitutions, as expressed by Justice Carpeneti in the Green Party case, is essential to monitoring “judicial activism” that when unchecked can circumvent federal case law. We cannot blame the judiciary if we ourselves shy away from enforcing or re-shaping the law. And parties cannot defend the world’s best hope for human progress if they falter in their purpose.
Here are some numbers I found after a brief search of the AK Division of Elections website:
Total registered voters: 590,422
Total registered Republicans: 142,266 (24%)
Total registered Democrats: 78,664 (13%)
Total registered Third Party: 109,858 (19%)
Total registered Undeclared: 259,634 (44%)
Why should 37% of Registered Alaskan voters be deciding who the candidates are for a general election where more people are undeclared voters at 44% of the total? This is the total of registered Republicans and Democrats vs registered Undeclared
Why should the state be paying for a closed primary election that caters to a total of 37% of the state? If political parties want a primary, they should hold and fund one themselves.
“…….Why should 37% of Registered Alaskan voters be deciding who the candidates are for a general election………”
They aren’t. They have no power over the Democrat candidate, the candidate of the other parties, or independent candidates. They have the right to determine who represents their party.
Combined, registered Republicans and registered Democrats total to 37% of the registere3d voters in Alaska. Thus, prior to the RCV elections, those 37% of registered voters chose the candidates for the general elections as the primary elections were closed to only voters registered with that party.
Those primary elections were paid for by the state of Alaska, not those political parties.
Again I ask, if political parties want to choose a candidate for the general election, why should the state, where 63% of registered voters are not registered as Democrats or Republicans, pay for it?
Would you be equally outraged if the parties selected their candidates via convention? Cheers –
Does the state or party pay for their own convention? If paid for by the state, then yes, I would have an issue with the selection of a candidate by convention.
Look at voting % of undeclared voters versus registered Republicans and Democrats.
We vote you don’t.
That’s why we DESERVE primaries and you DO NOT deserve RCV.
Look at the turnout for the 2024 Presidential election. In Alaska, the turnout was 55.80%
140,026 for Harris/Walz. That is 62,000 more votes than registered democrats.
184,458 for Trump/Vance. That is 42,000 more than registered republicans.
There are over 100,000 votes from people who are not registered with either party if there were 100% turnout of registered dem or repub voters.
Now if we take the 55.80% of registered democrats, that would be approximately 44,000 voters. 55.80% of registered democrats is approximately 80,000 voters.
Your statement that republicans/conservatives vote while the opposition does not, doesn’t stand up to analysis.
👍
Thanks.
As an undeclared voter, I support party-member-only primary elections, i.e., registered Rs select their best candidate, registered Ds select their own candidate, and ditto for AIP, Libertarians, etc. Then each party’s ’most representative’ candidate proceeds to the general election. People such as myself, who choose no party affiliation, will not participate in primary elections.
If I feel passionately about a candidate and wish to support them during a primary, I can use my checkbook and my voice. And I can even register with that candidate’s party so I can vote. What brings lunacy to an election is the jungle primary. Most of the candidates have little chance of winning a double digit percentage of votes; many have limited name recognition; with many, we have little idea where they stand on issues and, lacking any history on them, they suffer a lack credibility when they put their views in writing. We don’t suffer these defects with party primaries.
While I do support repeal of RCV in AK, I could probably live with it if we S-canned the jungle primary process, resorted to party members putting their best candidate forward, and then ranking those four or five candidates in the general election.
Insightful and inciting article Jon.
“……..Trump changed all this for Republicans but not in a party-driven manner. The brand is now MAGA and Trump himself, not the Republican party. His persona has replaced the platform……..”
You may not like Trump’s persona any more than I do, but he has proven to be the cure, not the cancer. He veers little from the party platform, unlike the armies of RINOs since Watergate and Roe. Indeed, he either destroys RINOs, or they get in line like good little boys and girls. The Democrats have been running their party like this since JFK was assassinated but in mafioso style instead of strongman fashion.
If you don’t like Trumpism, you don’t have long to wait for relief. He has three years left in his term, he won’t live forever afterwards, and the RINOs are silently awaiting their opportunities again like vultures. But boy, oh boy, I’m thinking that the blender is going to be switched to hi after next November………
This column is based on truisms that are woefully incomplete in terms of addressing the obvious systemic election issues in Alaska and America, e.g. apportionment and massive amounts of money slipped into the electoral process. This kind of naive analysis practically shrieks of detached political elitism.
The two-Party system may have worked well in the past, but like many hallowed myths from years gone by, I suspect it wasn’t all peachy keen a hundred years ago. One thing is definitely true today – the corrupt duopoly that Americans are living under today is totally compromised by foreign influences that only care about their own nation’s well-being. Until that problem is addressed the USA, as we know it, is in great peril!
A well-argued case for the two-party system. But do you really think any group of folks as large as the population of any state can be neatly and accurately defined politically in only two ways? Most modern democracies elsewhere don’t think so. We – almost alone – seem to think so.
Faulkner, what a grim notion! I’ll take my chances with the “second coming” before I place any hope in either the Republicans or the Democrats. What gives rises rise to your ideological blindness–more of the same?