Ready, set: Petition to repeal Ballot Measure 2 has been approved by Lt. Gov. Dahlstrom


A group of Alaskans seeking to repeal a 2020 Alaska law that created no-party primaries and ranked choice voting has had its application to collect signatures on a petition approved by Lt. Gov. Nancy Dahlstrom.

Alaskans for Honest Elections needs to collect 30,000 signatures, or about 10% of the number of people who voted in the last election, and has until next year to finish gathering signatures. The group plans to collect over 40,000 to make sure enough are qualified. The plan is to have the question on the general election ballot in 2024.

“We want to have a large margin of error. To get involved please email [email protected],” said Alaskans for Honest Elections.

Meanwhile, Alaskans for Better Elections, the group that brought Ballot Measure 2 to Alaska through dark money from national liberal entities, has been running a significant ad campaign to tell Alaskans how much they enjoy ranked choice voting.


  1. Dead on arrival. RVC is incumbent protection at its finest.

    It’s not in anyone in Juneau’s use to let it happen. Would Porcaro put in as much effort defending it as he did promoting it?

    • RCV actually promotes and protects moderate candidates. It’s not designed to protect incumbents. It will actually work to dump incumbents who are extreme with an extreme orientation that doesn’ resonate with a majority of voters in the district in which they run. Given the open primary process in the law that came into being with the voter approved initiative, RCV also reduces the ability of political parties to nominate hot-heads and candidates with extreme views.

      • Yes, that is the typical leftist’s interpretation of Rank Choice Voting, Joe.
        It is also true that it is designed to protect pro-status-quo, pro-establishment candidates. Like it protected our beloved Princess Lisa.
        Very few here will buy your specious arguments about RCV.
        Nor should they.

        • The reason why you and many on this forum despise Lisa is why she won reelection.

          Lisa knows that getting only the diehard Republican votes will not win an election in its self, so she appeals to a larger part of the electorate. Lisa does not kowtow to the extremism on either side of the aisle. She will work with Democrats (gasp!) to get things done for the State as well as our Country. Gridlock helps no one.

          Lisa promotes herself as a moderate Republican and her voting record reflects that. She voted 75% of the time with President Trump’s agenda.

          We don’t want lemmings, we want people who will at least think and reason prior to making a big decision. I believe you were disparaging mask wearers elsewhere on this forum by calling them sheep who will follow the crowd, but it sure seems like you want sheep Senators and Representatives who will go along with the party’s choices

        • I’ve never been called a typical leftist, which is your characterization of me, whom I don’t ever call meeting. Maybe I have, given your inability to use a real name.
          Jeff: try and engage in at least a teeny weenie bit of analysis about the issue instead of just lurching off the rails and engaging in ad hominum bushwaking. Try, at least, if you can. You might find it worthwhile.

          • Joe, your defense of everything that supports the corrupt political status-quo is and has been clearly on display in this forum. I have less and less respect (really, now none) for you with your every disingenuous and duplicitous post.

      • Why in the world would you want moderate candidates? Seriously, moderates stand for nothing. They start out from a position of compromise, and then the results of their “work” end squarely on the opposite side of the political aisle.
        Besides, every candidate, and I am every candidate I have ever watched campaigning, always moves toward the center after the primary. Want to be on the general election? You gotta sell to the folks on your side of the aisle. Want to win? Gotta get the swing voters, which means moderate.
        Do you assume that the candidate’s position does not change after the primary?

        • Moderates working together usually get something accomplished in the political realm if you’ve been paying attention to results instead of concentrating on rhetoric.

          • Joe, where do you compute your load of BS?
            RCV has one design…….to open the Republican Primary so that Democrats can send in the RINOS to the general election and block out the conservatives. That’s it.

          • Really? Like what? All the legislation that pushed the National debt beyond $31T?
            Or perhaps the moderates working together to give billions to the Ukraine?
            Can you actually name anything moderates working together accomplished that did not have massive unintended (and adverse) consequences?

      • Joe, please stop sniffing glue. RCV is a plot nationwide to alter the will of the people by allowing Democrats to support RINO collaborators, thereby thwarting the will of the people. The only reason Lisa Murkowski is still in her Senate Seat is RCV. Otherwise, we would have a person that actually believes in the country and the Constitution, Kelly Tshibaka. Why do you think they spent millions on dark money ads to brainwash folks to support it and had one of Murkowski’s lawyers go to court to have a corrupt judge say it was constitutional? Now it is being pushed in States across America. It is election engineering to control the outcome of an election in favor of the more radical candidate and is completely unconstitutional.

      • So, Joe doesn’t believe that all candidates should have an equal chance before the voters? Doesn’t it seem odd that he is supporting something that is designed to give specific types of candidates a clear advantage?

    • Right, because the machines are all rigged, right? Do you even want to TRY and provide any proof that this is actually the case or are you going to whine like a little right wing snowflake?

      • After you insert your ballot into the machine, you have no proof that your ballot was read, was read correctly, or what. It goes in and the poll worker gives you a sticker.
        Is there any way for me to know if my ballot was read correctly? None that I know of.
        But, if you want to just assume everything is hunky dory because some machine allowed a piece of paper to go into it, great, you do that.

        • I’ve personally engaged in a number of recounts and election cases. The amount of actual, verifiable, provable voter fraund is miniscule.
          Try and engage in reality based analysis instead of speculative fantasy land theories.

          • Good for you.
            Know why you cannot verify voter fraud? Has nothing to do with the system being perfect, or close to perfect. It has everything to do with the anonymous voting. After a ballot goes on the stack, you have zero method of identifying if it was legitimately cast.
            The audit in Maricopa county found a massive number of ballots that were cast that were questionable at best, and outright fraudulent at worst, but what will/can be done? Nothing because you cannot identify who cast those ballots, and cannot definitively determine them to be illegal. So… here we are, you are convinced that the election system is bullet proof, and I am convinced it is as secure as a screen door on a submarine. We are both wrong.
            How’s that for reality based analysis?

      • Cman, only the most extremely gullible, naive and ignorant voter would EVER stand for somebody in government telling them “Just trust us”, particularly when the voting process in Alaska (and Anchorage especially) has become so intermediated, opaque and open to corruption.
        In other words, grow up or shut up.

          • Yes, Joe, that is EXACTLY what mail-in voting, and now rank choice voting, amounts to. Particularly the latter, as there is no possibility of a recount or vote verification.
            Your disingenuousness is off the charts, Joe. And your credibility in this discussion is absent. I despise your arrogance.

      • If the machines are so efficient, why do we have to wait weeks for the outcome? In person voting as in the old days we knew election night or by the next morning who won.

        • There are some pesky rules about allowing all mail/absentee ballots to be counted.

          Even in the “old days” it often took weeks to determine winners. Kinda hard to receive all ballots on election day when mail service can take days to come to the hubs from all the far flung villages across Alaska. Or mail service my only be two or three days a week.

          And don’t forget our military members serving across the world. We wouldn’t want them to have a chance to have their vote counted, now would we? Official results never come out until 2 weeks after an election. The media may project winners, but that is not official

          Alaska has always allowed for absentee/mail in ballots to be received up to 10 days after an election so long as they are postmarked by election day.

          And with regards to the complaints about the vote tabulation machines: Have any of you complainers ever worked with these machines? I have for smaller business elections and they are very efficient and very accurate. Our hand count audits of batches of ballots comes up exactly the same as the machine. Also, none of these machines are hooked up to the internet, results are instead downloaded off the machine and sent to the main tabulator. And the best part, none of the ballots are destroyed so there is an easy way to check the accuracy of your count.

  2. Scott Kendall organized his Prop #2 signature petition drive with the unions throughout Alaska. Union members were trained and then hassled shoppers at Safeway, Fred Meyers, US Post Office, and other high trafficed locations to obtain signatures. The anti-RCV signature gathers should do the same thing. Let’s roll!

  3. While the ballot measure to repeal rank choice voting is absolutely necessary and good. We need to pass it. Of equal or greater importance is the transparent counting of votes.

  4. Ranked Choice Voting is made for fools and anyone who bought into it is a fool. We have a big problem here in Alaska because we have no way to track our votes from start to finish. Once it is sucked into the voting machine, who is to say it is not part of the Democrat voting scheme? No one can prove to me that my vote was tallied the way I voted. Transparency leads to trust in the system. It is telling Democrats are against transparency when it comes to voting.

  5. That is just plain rude Ms. Dahlstrom.

    Unfair for judges to have work on a Sunday to conjure up some cockamamie basakward legal reason to throw this out.

    • The Lieutenant Governor did her job. What Scott means by his judges working on Sunday is hard to say. Confusion abounds, yet again, among those with axe to grind and no obvious target for their cofused reasoning.

  6. We will see if there are enough conservatives and disenfranchised voters who are smart enough to vote this down.

    • There is nothing conservative at all about RCV. It exists to give candidates, that would normally be weeded out in a primary, a second chance at winning it all. I.e., mary peltola.

    • Or, whether there exist in Alaska enough smart and savvy voters to turn down an measure a majority of voters approved of not so long ago.

      • If it is really that popular, Joe, then you far-left defenders of the power establishment have nothing to worry about in regards to rank choice voting being put up to another vote. But worried you clearly are.

    • RCV passed once and worked well when applied. What makes anyone think the average voter is going to dump a system that works to winnow out hot heaads and extreme candidates in the Democratic Party?

      • Joe, your snark and arrogance, along with your defense of a demonstrably corrupt political establishment, mark you as just another radical leftist and/or RINO (it is often nowadays almost impossible to tell them apart). You are just a shill for a system that everyone with any decency and any honesty knows is rotten to the core. I have nothing but absolute contempt for people such as you.

  7. Before this, we had the state paying for two private political organizations to support their choices through a private political party-approved list only. Normal Alaskans need not apply. The open primary provides for typical Alaskans to represent Alaskans. Otherwise, we are stuck with party loyalty to Mitch McConnell or California Kevin. Bowing down to the party with its poor historical records does not define the Last Frontier. Sara lost because 7,000 Alaskans who voted for Nick placed Mary as their second pick. You know what RCV demonstrated? A character flaw. Lack of humility and poor candidates spoiled the outcome not RCV.

    • The issue you so interestingly ignore, is that we would have settled the Sarah/Nick question in the traditional primary and only had one of them run against Mary. Same goes for the Kelly/Lisa race. Open primaries simply weed out the “out there” candidates like Santa Claus and dilute the field enough to give the likes of Mary Peltola a chance to break in the top 4. It is my contention had Al Gross not withdrawn (for reasons still not clear), it would most likely have been a race between Nick and Sarah. The entire premise of “settling for second, third… best” flies in the face of choosing the best representation. RCV doesn’t give you representation for the majority, it gives you the least objectionable fringe candidate. Maybe if you want a voice you should step up and make a declaration.

    • Can you please explain to me why someone who is not a party member should have any say whatsoever in who the political party chooses to represent them on the ballot? Why should a card carrying Republican get any say whatsoever in who represents the Democrats in November?
      If you want to be independent, fine, but there is a cost to that. Don’t like it, pick a party.

      • I can only answer this question myself, not for Chris, but my reasoning for being in favor of RCV is that I despise political parties in general. But Republican and Democrats use the party membership as a weapon to keep people in line. The open primary Alaskans the chance to choose their representatives, not the political parties.

        So after answering your question, I will ask one of my own, why should the political party get any choice as to who the candidates for an elected office should be?

        • Your reason for supporting RCV is a lie. If you run a candidate as a true independent then that person will be on the ballot in the general election. Primaries are ONLY to produce a winner from multiple candidates from each party. If you are not a member of any party, then you should not have a say as to whom that parties primary winner will be. And if the party candidates are so bad why haven’t you pushed an alternative candidate? The answer to that is because you couldn’t find one and until RCV came along you couldn’t be an independent and have a say in party candidates.

          In answer to your question ‘why should a party get any choice in candidates?’, it’s because a party is a group of like minded people that support a common cause. They advance a candidate to the general election just like you have the opportunity to do. So again, if the party candidates are so bad, where is the ‘good’ candidate that you support?

        • Because the party is the members of the party.
          Do you think the party elites decide who wins the primary?
          The parties, all of them, are their members.
          Why do you think otherwise?

          • I was reminded of something.
            I am wrong. The Democrat party elites DO decide who wins the primary. They have these “super delegates” that will select whomever the party wants, regardless of the will of the voters. It is why Hillary won over Bernie in several states. And, it is within the bounds of the party to do so. If the members of the party want to change it, they need to change party rules.

  8. RCV is here to stay. Under the two party primary system, the rightwingers put up a far right candidate and the leftwingers put up a far left candidate, while 60% of the people would prefer someone more moderate. So it’s understandable why you MRAK types want to get rid of it, since it will result in moderate candidates getting elected.

    • Moderates stand for nothing. They start out from a position of compromise. Net result, the outcome satisfies no one.
      Besides, before the primary, every candidate is a far left/right extremist. it is required to win the primary. For the general election, they tone it down. Every time.

      • Wrong again. Does this guy actually pay attention to what really happens in the political system. Apparently not. Must be living in Mom’s basement playing video games and cooking up whacky political theories disconnected from what really transpires.

  9. Under RCV many Alaskans had their ballots tossed. The rejection rate was double the previous primary election. Even worse, the rejection rate was very high in rural Alaska. APM reported:

    “Generally, rural Alaska — communities off the road system with populations that tend to be majority Alaska Native — had the highest rejection rates at around 13.74%. More than half of those rejections were because of a lack of witness signature.

    Within rural Alaska, the region covering Bethel and surrounding Yukon-Kuskokwim villages had the highest rejection rate in the state, at around 17%, or 1 in 6 ballots. Almost two-thirds of rejections were due to a lack of witness signature. ”

    To be sure, many ballots were tossed for reasons not related to RCV. But one wonders if the cumulative impact of all the complexities of RCV wore some voters out- by the time they needed to get witness signatures they stopped caring whether they got it right or not.

    Voting needs to be simple. Not everyone is a rocket scientist. Voting should also not be racist. Asking (indigenous) people who do not speak English as their first language to wade into a complicated voting system is inherently unfair.

    Finally, political parties should be able to select their candidates. Why allow Republicans to pick Democrats, or vice versa?

    It would be nice if the legislature would repeal this. But at least we can bypass them with a referendum.

  10. I just emailed the link and look forward to helping repeal this rcv nonsense
    lets all get involved and show the other states were not going to accept this power grab by the ” elites”

  11. It is imperative we get rid of RCV – rigged choice voting. Along with that though our voter rolls desperately need to be cleaned up and unrequested mail in voting eliminated.

    • Spot on Elizabeth. We need a system that checks the voter roles for eligibility each year. We may not be able to completely stop election fraud but we need to do our best to stop as much as possible.

    • Frank, if it is your real name, we are OK with doing that.
      What we are not OK with is the doxxing, threats (and yes, I have been threatened because of something I wrote in the past), etc… Not because it was warranted, but because I annoyed a leftist.
      So, I have zero idea whether you just grabbed a name from the phone book, or what. So, my anonymous username here is just as anonymous as yours is. I just did not take any effort to make it look like a real name.

        • If I was a leftist, I would post the name, tel #, and address of the person from Girdwood that left multiple threatening messages on my phone. But, I trust the APD when they said they spoke with this individual and explained his behavior was anti-social, and if such behavior were to continue it would result in police action.
          But, thanks for asking.

    • Anonymous trolls which reside in other states need to be wiped from our voter rolls. Nice to see you legally now have to answer such questions to file for your pfd.

  12. I wonder if any of the objection to RCV is that conservatives appear to be too stupid to comprehend it? I’ve heard of countless people claiming they didn’t understand how to vote. Critical thinking appears to be absent in a large segment of our population.

    • Maybe non-radical-leftists oppose Rank Choice Voting precisely BECAUSE they understand it. In your unbridled and self-righteous leftist arrogance, did you ever consider that possibility, cman? No, of course you did not.

      • Is your rotting right wing brain capable of refuting something without using the phrase “radical leftist?” You literally seem incapable of it and it doesn’t bolster your argument one iota.

        • Cman, when I am confronted with a radical leftist extremist, such as yourself, I am going to call him out as a radical leftist extremist, every time. So get used to it, punk.

        • LOL, no. Jefferson conflates hurling insults with intelligence, and yelling with critical analysis. Anyone that doesn’t fully agree with him is a radical leftist, radical leftists are always completely wrong, therefore Jefferson is completely right.

          But it’s not because he has a right wing brain. There are plenty of reasoned right wing posters on MRAK, and plenty that take pains to be civil. He’s just not one of them. What Jefferson doesn’t know (or won’t acknowledge) is that they nearly always ignore him.

        • As usual for a radical leftist, Unreliable Voter, you are completely wrong.
          But I am glad that you have highlighted your arrogance here yet again. Because I am NOT a right-winger, and never have been. I am a libertarian, who despite my many differences with many conservatives can clearly see that in recent years, it is you radical leftist extremists who pose an infinitely greater danger to liberty in this country, and around the world, than anyone from the rightward end of the so-called political spectrum.
          You and everyone like you are the enemy, cman. Not just of myself, not just of liberty, but actually of yourself. But you are too stupid, too ignorant, too arrogant and too self-righteous, in your mindless radical leftist hive mind groupthink, to realize that.

          • You are consistent, I’ll give you that, but the formula is limited: Insult, build straw man, insult, tear down straw man, insult, bravo sierra about not being partisan, insult, sanctimonious parting shot. There are many strong conservative voices here – you’re not one.

    • I’ll grant your point regarding the stupidity of AK voters. We reelected Lisa and voted in Mary.

      More, we brought back Cathy Giessel.

      Anchorage has elected the most incompetent group of trolls imaginable to the Assembly.

      And far, far, far too many of us were taken in by the promises of a sleazy lawyer and his talk show mouthpiece.

      So I’ll grant you on balance we’re stupid voters. But not in the way you stated. Not at all.

    • Well they don’t just appear to be too stupid, they are too stupid. Facts hurt, but when your Trumplican stupid you are too brainless to know it.

    • Well, if that is the case, the leftists who are always trying to get as many voters out there as possible, would be all for returning to the previous system that even the lowest IQ conservatives could understand.

  13. Incorrect Headline: This petition does not repeal ballot measure two. It only repeals two components and leaves one of the most egregious restrictions on free speech that exists in the entire 50 states.

  14. Any bets that our Supremes will now decide that this initiative has two distinct issues and is invalid, a reversal of their original ruling for Prop2? Oops. We got that one wrong and now we’re going to delay your initiative and make you do two separate ones.

    • I’ll bet. A grand in US federal reserve notes. Even odds. Suzanne Downing can hold the stake. If the Alaska Supreme Court rules the way you claim, Ms. Downing will give you the grand. If the AK Supreme Court doesn’t rule the way you claim, she will give me the grand.

      Put up or go silent.

        • Jeff: Wrong again. Nothing wrong with making a wager. Not reporting income would cause trouble. Did you notice AK Fish didn’t pick up the wager. Same offer to bet to you. Put up or shut up.

  15. No. Every ballot will be by paper and you will get your thumb marked with purple indelible ink, just like in Afghanistan in the good, old days.
    The ballots will be counted up or down. There is no ranking in a ballot measure put forward by initiative.

    • So you want a legitimate count when you are willing to bet your own money, but not when we vote for federal candidates.

    • I would support that in a second, with only one condition. Photo ID is required to vote.
      Please, push for it.

      • Wow! Wouldn’t an I.D. requirement throw a monkey wrench into the lefts plans, lol. Lets make it even better and require that ballots be cast on one day!

  16. Joe, I’m concerned. You’ve tilted off the deep end of the pool. Your buddy Scott Kendall ain’t gonna throw you a life ring either, unless you pay big. Or, maybe you already have?

  17. Excellent, another chance to defeat you right wing loons. I gotta give it to you fools, you don’t give up trying to rule by minority easy. Back to your lie filled pews this Sunday you go.

  18. Guys, it is 33 pages long. Great. We’re being asked to replace something that nobody read with a longer ballot initiative that nobody will read either. I don’t think that’s progress. Cheers –


  19. RCV is here to stay. If you don’t know anyone that likes it, you only hang out with those that fully agree with your political positions. Nothing wrong with that, other than not recognizing the sample size is biased.

    It’s here through the 2024 elections regardless of repeal efforts. Yelling about it isn’t going to get your candidates elected; better figure out a way to work within it (at least in the short term).

  20. What a lot people fail to forget, because majority of Alaskans are very short sighted. Prop #2 was sold to the average Alaskan being about “dark” money flowing into Alaska elections. Very little was mentioned about RCV. The people who pushed RCV through prop #2 are worried because now RCV will be a stand alone issue on the ballot. Be a simple yes or no.

    • 1. Yes, Prop 2 promoted the idea of decreasing dark money. It’s nonsense; the only way to eliminate dark money is to require full disclosure of donors.
      2. A lot was mentioned on RCV, you just weren’t paying attention. There were endless debates about how it would work, who it would advantage/disadvantage, etc. I heard folks on both sides argue that it was great or terrible. Many Ds voted against it, many Rs voted for it. It barely passed, which isn’t surprising.
      3. No one is worried that RCV will be a stand alone issue on the ballot. No one. The proponents think did some polling that showed a significant majority of voters were not confused, and most were pleased with the outcome. The proponents think that, for most folks, having experienced RCV first hand debunks the “confusing” and “one person, one vote” arguments against it.
      4. As several (but far from all) conservative posters on this site have said, RCV is likely here to stay. Strategically, it makes far more sense to learn to compete using RCV than to continue making arguments against it that only motivate moderates and independents to support it.

      • If your not worried about it getting repealed why are you trying so hard to convince all of us it’s a good thing? I heard countless radio ads on BM #2 they all talked about dark money always a little blurb at the end about rcv. Then everyone favorite afternoon talk host on 650 AM got on board with rcv and he discussed it.

        • I’ve actually never said it was a good thing; and I’ve never promoted it. I’ve simply countered what I thought were silly or just plain wrong arguments against it. I’m open to good counter arguments, but most here offer nothing more than sour grapes.

          I definitely like the instant runoff aspect; it’s efficient and saves a lot of money. I also like being able to vote for whoever I want to in the primary. I think we need to see a few more elections before we can say it’s better or worse overall than the previous system.

  21. Joe Geldhof:

    Come in and see me before Friday. I’ve got a special walk-in rate for out-of-touch Lefties who have an uncontrollable compulsion to opine utter nonsense. MRAK would probably run a Go Fund Me operation just to see you in therapy. I can provide a differential diagnosis for your problem before you sign the confidential agreement.

    • Dr. Dan, you may need to assemble a panel of specialists for Joe’s case — I suspect that there is simply too much mental chaos, leftist dogma and cognitive dissonance within his skull for a single doctor, no matter how skilled, to deal with and treat by himself.
      Good luck, and may God have mercy on your soul!

      • Jefferson,
        I don’t think its really that complicated. Dr. Dan is a specialist. He could figure out his mental problem in about five minutes. More meds on the way.

    • Would if you used your actual name instead of cheesy moniker you elect to hide behind.
      What are you, yet another guy living in mom and daddy’s basement playing video games and spending time spewing on a blog ranting on about topics you are without genuine knowledge or experience?

      • Jeff rings the bell, yet again.

        The dumb bell.

        Onward Jeff through the fog. Full throttle into oblivion.

        • Very classy, Joe.
          Your (so-called) professionalism, or more to the point your almost complete lack thereof, has been wonderfully and repeatedly demonstrated in this thread for all to see.
          Good job!

          • I’ve got this one. Joe’s case is easy to disassemble. It’s an interesting blend of narcisism, disempathy, and societal anger, all wrapped up in one big sociopathology that speaks of a person who is in a fantasy with himself.

  22. I am against Rank Choice Voting. I think it was a scheme to elect Morkowski and we need to repeal this terrible way of voting. I want someone who doesn’t take funds from outsiders in order to win.

Comments are closed.