Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Top Stories

Alaska’s new approach to primaries offers an antidote to polarized election results

Rep. Mary Peltola

Democratic Rep. Mary Peltola, a centrist, defeated more partisan candidates in 2022. She likely would have lost under Alaska's old election system, writes Palmer.

Jabin Botsford/The Washington Post via Getty Images

Palmer is chairman of Rank the Vote and a member of the board of the National Association of Nonpartisan Reformers.

Beyond being kidney-punched in the Capitol or censured by colleagues, the biggest threat a compromise-minded member of Congress faces these days comes from a primary election challenge. Being “primaried” for displaying insufficient partisanship is the quickest route out of Congress. The prime example is former Rep. Liz Cheney, the one-time GOP darling who crossed her Trump-dominated party and failed to win her renomination bid by a 2-to-1 margin.

Thanks to gerrymandered congressional districts, the winner of the favored party’s primary is assured a general election victory in all but about 10 percent of House races. Worse, primaries are low-turnout embarrassments for democracy that favor extremist elements in the party. When first elected to Congress in 2016, Republican firebrand Matt Gaetz received votes from just 7 percent of his Florida district’s voters in the GOP primary. But that was all he needed for a resounding general election win in his ruby-red district. Similarly, in her first congressional election in 2018, far-left Democrat Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez's easy win in November came after she won a low-turnout primary with the support of less than 5 percent of the registered voters in her district.

Fortunately, there is a novel solution to lessen the Grand Canyon of space between our two polarized parties. Alaska’s system – passed by a ballot initiative in 2020 – features nonpartisan primaries and instant-runoff general elections, and it marks a first in American elections. All candidates for state and federal office appear on the same nonpartisan ballot, regardless of party. The top four vote-getters advance to the general election, where ranked-choice voting determines the winner.


The results from the model’s 2022 debut were encouraging. The nationally newsworthy winners were Republican Sen. Lisa Murkowski, whom former President Donald Trump vocally tried to have challenged in the primary, and Democratic Rep. Mary Peltola. Both are considered centrists and prevailed over the more extreme candidates who likely would have won in the old system.

Intraparty competition came out of the shadows of closed partisan primaries into the limelight of the (higher-turnout) general elections in down-ballot races as well. In six different stateSenate races, two Republicans advanced to face each other in November. Independents, Democrats and other non-Republicans played a part in determining the winners, benefitting the more moderate candidates. The right-leaning think tank R Street assessed that the winner in each of these six contests would have lost in a Republican-only primary.

The new Alaskan playing field is also more level for independent or minor-party candidates. While third or fourth candidates are typically shouted down as “spoilers” in most American elections (witness reaction to Robert F. Kennedy, Jr.’s independent presidential efforts and Democratic Sen. Joe Manchin’s “No Labels” flirtation), Alaska’s instant-runoff approach silences the “wasted vote” argument. Encouragingly, six independents won seats in the Alaska State Legislature in 2022.

Lastly, analysts report that 44 percent more Alaska races had competitive margins and that half as many candidates ran unopposed compared to the prior election cycle. The upshot is that more moderate candidates won in Alaska in 2022 and more Alaskans’ votes mattered.

What happened once these legislators elected arrived in Juneau and Washington, D.C., is even more important: They no longer were looking over their shoulder at the prospect of primary challenges. Knowing they would face all voters in their next primary – not just the most devout partisans – they knew they needed to answer the question “How are you serving your district?” rather than “Are you keeping party bosses happy?”

Other states are taking notice of Alaska’s innovation. Nevada has taken the first step to copy Alaska’s approach, passing in 2022 a “Final Five Voting” initiative. (It needs to pass again in 2024 to comply with Nevada’s constitutional rules.) And in Colorado, businessman-turned-reformer Kent Thiry has just announced he will lead an effort to put a referendum similar to Alaska’s on the ballot. Credible nonpartisan primary reform efforts are also under way in Arizona, Idaho and Wisconsin.

The hope among those of us supporting primary reform is that Alaska’s new system will continue to produce less-polarized lawmakers who will in turn be able to work together more effectively to advance public policy. There’s also hope that it levels the playing field for those running from outside the two major parties. While it’s early yet to assess the impact of a voting innovation in one thinly populated state, we can scarcely do worse than the gridlocked insanity of the status quo in Washington. Isn’t it time we shake things up in the Lower 48 as well?

Read More

Connecticut: Democracy, Innovation, and Economic Resilience

The 50: Connecticut

Credit: Hugo Balta

Connecticut: Democracy, Innovation, and Economic Resilience

The 50 is a four-year multimedia project in which the Fulcrum visits different communities across all 50 states to learn what motivated them to vote in the 2024 presidential election and see how the Donald Trump administration is meeting those concerns and hopes.

Hartford, Connecticut, stands as a living testament to American democracy, ingenuity, and resilience. As the state’s capital, it’s home to cultural landmarks like the Mark Twain House & Museum, where Twain penned The Adventures of Tom Sawyer, embodying the spirit of self-governance and creative daring that defines the region.

Keep ReadingShow less
Hand blocking someone speaking

The Third Way has recently released a memo stating that the “stampede away from the Democratic Party” is partly a result of the language and rhetoric it uses.

Westend61/Getty Images

To Protect Democracy, Democrats Should Pay Attention to the Third Way’s List of ‘Offensive’ Words

More than fifty years ago, comedian George Carlin delivered a monologue entitled Seven Words You Can Never Say on Television.” It was a tribute to the legendary Lenny Bruce, whose “nine dirty words” performance led to his arrest and his banning from many places.

His seven words were “p—, f—, c—, c———, m———–, and t—.”

Keep ReadingShow less
Fox News’ Selective Silence: How Trump’s Worst Moments Vanish From Coverage
Why Fox News’ settlement with Dominion Voting Systems is good news for all media outlets
Getty Images

Fox News’ Selective Silence: How Trump’s Worst Moments Vanish From Coverage

Last week, the ultraconservative news outlet, NewsMax, reached a $73 million settlement with the voting machine company, Dominion, in essence, admitting that they lied in their reporting about the use of their voting machines to “rig” or distort the 2020 presidential election. Not exactly shocking news, since five years later, there is no credible evidence to suggest any malfeasance regarding the 2020 election. To viewers of conservative media, such as Fox News, this might have shaken a fully embraced conspiracy theory. Except it didn’t, because those viewers haven’t seen it.

Many people have a hard time understanding why Trump enjoys so much support, given his outrageous statements and damaging public policy pursuits. Part of the answer is due to Fox News’ apparent censoring of stories that might be deemed negative to Trump. During the past five years, I’ve tracked dozens of examples of news stories that cast Donald Trump in a negative light, including statements by Trump himself, which would make a rational person cringe. Yet, Fox News has methodically censored these stories, only conveying rosy news that draws its top ratings.

Keep ReadingShow less
U.S. Flag / artificial intelligence / technology / congress / ai

The age of AI warrants asking if the means still further the ends—specifically, individual liberty and collective prosperity.

Getty Images, Douglas Rissing

Liberty and the General Welfare in the Age of AI

If the means justify the ends, we’d still be operating under the Articles of Confederation. The Founders understood that the means—the governmental structure itself—must always serve the ends of liberty and prosperity. When the means no longer served those ends, they experimented with yet another design for their government—they did expect it to be the last.

The age of AI warrants asking if the means still further the ends—specifically, individual liberty and collective prosperity. Both of those goals were top of mind for early Americans. They demanded the Bill of Rights to protect the former, and they identified the latter—namely, the general welfare—as the animating purpose for the government. Both of those goals are being challenged by constitutional doctrines that do not align with AI development or even undermine it. A full review of those doctrines could fill a book (and perhaps one day it will). For now, however, I’m just going to raise two.

Keep ReadingShow less