Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories

How ranked-choice voting helped Mary Peltola make history in Alaska

Mary Peltola
Ash Adams for The Washington Post via Getty Images

Democrat Mary Peltola was declared the winner of a special election in Alaska on Wednesday, becoming the first Native American to serve in the House of Representatives and the first Democrat to hold the seat in 50 years.

And if it hadn’t been for the state’s switch to open primaries and ranked-choice voting, the result could have been quite different.


Two years ago, the voters of Alaska approved a ballot measure that created a unique election system that combines a “top four” primary with RCV. The state starts with a nonpartisan, open primary in which all candidates compete on one ballot and the four who amass the most votes advance to the general election, regardless of party.

Then, in the general election, the candidates compete in a ranked-choice election. Voters can rank the candidates in order of preference, and if no one receives a majority of the votes, the last-place candidate is eliminated and their support is redistributed to voters’ next choice. The process continues until someone has a majority.

In the June 11 primary, to replace the late Rep. Don Young, Peltola finished fourth, behind Republicans Sarah Palin and Nick Begich and independent Al Gross. After the primary was complete, Gross dropped out of the race, leaving just three candidates for the general election.

In the Aug. 16 general election, Peltola led after the initial ballot count with 75,761 votes, but just 40 percent of the total. Palin was second with 58,945, about 5,200 more than Begich. So Begich was eliminated and his ballots were redistributed per his supporters’ rankings. While Palin did pick up most of the Begich ballots (27,042), it wasn’t enough to overcome Peltola’s new total of 91,206. More than 11,000 Begich voters did not list a second choice on their ballots.

Made with Flourish

While the system has critics who argue RCV is too complicated, polls consistently show voters understand and like it.

Alaskans for Better Elections, which advocated for the new election system, commissioned an exit poll in conjunction with the special election. It found that 85 percent of voters found the ranked ballot to be “simple” or “very simple.” And 95 percent said they had received instructions on how to fill out the ballot.

“These are fantastic numbers - they really reflect the willingness of Alaskans to learn about our new system and understand the benefits,” said Jason Grenn, executive director for Alaskans for Better Elections. “It’s also a testament to the hard work of the Division of Elections and many organizations across the state who are determined to make sure our elections inspire confidence and work well for each and every Alaskan voter. We will continue to work with our fellow Alaskans to ensure these reforms are seen for what they are – nonpartisan, simple, and meant to put voters first.”

Republican Sen. Tom Cotton of Alaska, however, tweeted his opposition to RCV, calling it a “scam,” following Palin’s loss.


Read More

Who’s Responsible When AI Causes Harm?: Unpacking the Federal AI Liability Framework Debate
the letters are made up of different colors

Who’s Responsible When AI Causes Harm?: Unpacking the Federal AI Liability Framework Debate

This nonpartisan policy brief, written by an ACE fellow, is republished by The Fulcrum as part of our partnership with the Alliance for Civic Engagement and our NextGen initiative — elevating student voices, strengthening civic education, and helping readers better understand democracy and public policy.

Key takeaways

  • The U.S. has no national AI liability law. Instead, a patchwork of state laws has emerged which has resulted in legal protections being dependent on where an individual resides.
  • It’s often unclear who is legally responsible when AI causes harm. This gap leaves many people with no clear path to seek help.
  • In March 2026, the White House and Congress introduced major proposals to establish a federal standard, but there is significant disagreement about whether that standard should prioritize protecting innovation or protecting people harmed by AI systems.

Background: A Patchwork of State Laws

Without a national AI law, states have been filling in the gaps on their own. The result is an uneven landscape where a person’s legal protections depend entirely on which state they live in.

Keep ReadingShow less
Stethoscope, pile of hundred dollar bills and a calculator

A deep dive into America’s healthcare cost crisis, comparing reform to a modern “moonshot.” Explores payment models, rising costs, and lessons from John F. Kennedy’s space race vision to drive systemic change.

IronHeart/Getty Images

The Moonshot America Needs to Solve Its Healthcare Crisis

In 1961, President John F. Kennedy told the nation, “We choose to go to the moon.” It’s often remembered as a moment of national ambition. In reality, the United States was locked in a Cold War with the Soviet Union, and the fear of falling behind in technological dominance made the mission unavoidable.

Today’s space race is driven by a different force. Governments and private companies are investing billions to capture economic advantages, from satellite infrastructure to advanced computing to the next frontier of resource extraction.

Keep ReadingShow less
After the Court's Voting Rights Decision - How to Protect Black-Majority Districts
a large white building with columns with United States Supreme Court Building in the background

After the Court's Voting Rights Decision - How to Protect Black-Majority Districts

The Supreme Court recently ruled that Louisiana violated the Constitution in creating a new Black-majority voting district. This was after a Federal court had ruled that the previous map, by packing Blacks all in one district, diluted their votes, which violated the Voting Rights Act.

The question is what impact the decision in Louisiana v Callais will have on §2 of the Voting Rights Act ... and on the current gerrymander contest to gain safe seats in the House. The conservative majority said that the decision left the Act intact. The liberal minority, in a strong dissent by Justice Kagan, said that the practical impact was to "render §2 all but a dead letter," making it likely that existing Black-majority districts will not remain for long.

Keep ReadingShow less