Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Top Stories

Alaska decides to switch to open primaries and ranked elections

Alaska
Zihao Chen/Getty Images

Alaskans have narrowly approved a sweeping revamp of their election rules, delivering one of the year's biggest victories to democracy reformers.

Adoption of the ballot initiative immediately pushes the nation's most expansive and remote state to a central place of honor for "good governance" groups, because the measure embraces two of their main goals: elections that are less monopolized by the major parties and campaign financing that's more transparent.

The victory became clear only Tuesday night, two weeks after the voting ended, thanks to the state's uniquely slow pace for tabulating mailed ballots. Because of the pandemic they accounted for two out of every five votes in Alaska this fall, and counting them reversed what looked like a likely defeat for the package. But with nearly complete results, the proposal has prevailed by 3,700 votes out of 343,000 cast — a margin of 1 percentage point.


As a result, starting in two years Alaska will replace traditional partisan primaries with single contests open to all candidates for governor and other state executive offices, each seat in the Legislature and the three spots in Congress. The top four finishers, regardless of party affiliation, will advance to the general election, at which point voters will rank their options to decide the winner. And all legislative and local races will face strict new disclosure requirements about the sources of campaign spending.

Sign up for The Fulcrum newsletter

While a handful of states have adopted open top-two primary systems, Alaska will be the first with primaries that advance even more candidates to the November ballot — increasing the likelihood that people who are not Republicans or Democrats will be able to compete in many races.

And Alaska will become only the second state, after Maine, to use ranked-choice voting statewide. Voters in Massachusetts decided this month not to join them.

"This is a victory for all Alaskans regardless of their political leaning. We now have an electoral system that lives up to Alaska's independent streak by saying 'to hell with politics let's do what is right for Alaska,'" said Shea Siegert, who managed the ballot measure campaign.

Proponents included the League of Women Voters, Open Primaries, the state employees union and the Libertarian Party. They argued that approval would shed light on the secretive flow of money into the state's political and governing system, curb the power of the two big parties and further promote centrist and independent candidates, who already have a better-than-average record of success in the state.

"The Last Frontier has become a beacon of hope for our nation: a real-time example of how to put voters first and reduce extremism, polarization and corruption in politics," said Josh Silver, CEO and co-founder of RepresentUs, another group that promoted the measure.

The main opposition came from a group dubbed Defend Alaska Elections, which was funded primarily by Republican campaign arms and fiscal conservative groups. It said the measure would sow voter confusion and complained the state was being used as a democracy reform laboratory by special-interest groups in the Lower 48.

Republican Lisa Murkowski is up for re-election to a fifth Senate term in two years, and former Gov. Sarah Palin, the party's 2008 vice-presidential candidate, has hinted she's ready to mount a comeback by challenging the senator. Under the new system, both well-known and presumably well-funded candidates would have a solid shot at making the November ballot.

In so-called RCV contests, voters list in order of preference the candidates they like. The race ends if one candidate is the top choice on a majority of ballots. Otherwise, an instant runoff takes place. The candidate with the fewest No. 1 votes is eliminated, the ballots ranking that person on top are assigned to the voters' second choices — the process repeating until one candidate emerges with majority support.

After traditional and unchanged presidential primaries, ranked-choice voting would also be used to award Alaska's three electoral votes under the referendum. Elections for municipal posts would not be altered.

The final element of the measure will require additional disclosure of contributions to independent expenditure groups and about the sources of contributions to candidate coffers — generally when the amounts topped $2,000. And it will require disclaimers on campaign advertising by organizations funded by mostly out-of-state money.

Under federal election campaign law, candidates for Congress in the state will still benefit from independent expenditures having no reporting obligations.

"Today's win is just the start. We will continue to work with our fellow Alaskans to ensure these reforms are seen for what they are — nonpartisan and practical," Siegert said. "Now the real work begins."

The other states with nonpartisan primaries advance just two candidates to the general election: Nebraska, Louisiana, Washington and California. A ballot measure that would have added Florida to the list failed to attain the 60 percent supermajority required this month.

Read More

Podcast: How do police feel about gun control?

Podcast: How do police feel about gun control?

Jesus "Eddie" Campa, former Chief Deputy of the El Paso County Sheriff's Department and former Chief of Police for Marshall Texas, discusses the recent school shooting in Uvalde and how loose restrictions on gun ownership complicate the lives of law enforcement on this episode of YDHTY.

Listen now

Podcast: Why conspiracy theories thrive in both democracies and autocracies

Podcast: Why conspiracy theories thrive in both democracies and autocracies

There's something natural and organic about perceiving that the people in power are out to advance their own interests. It's in part because it’s often true. Governments actually do keep secrets from the public. Politicians engage in scandals. There often is corruption at high levels. So, we don't want citizens in a democracy to be too trusting of their politicians. It's healthy to be skeptical of the state and its real abuses and tendencies towards secrecy. The danger is when this distrust gets redirected, not toward the state, but targets innocent people who are not actually responsible for people's problems.

On this episode of "Democracy Paradox" Scott Radnitz explains why conspiracy theories thrive in both democracies and autocracies.

Your Take:  The Price of Freedom

Your Take: The Price of Freedom

Our question about the price of freedom received a light response. We asked:

What price have you, your friends or your family paid for the freedom we enjoy? And what price would you willingly pay?

It was a question born out of the horror of images from Ukraine. We hope that the news about the Jan. 6 commission and Ketanji Brown Jackson’s Supreme Court nomination was so riveting that this question was overlooked. We considered another possibility that the images were so traumatic, that our readers didn’t want to consider the question for themselves. We saw the price Ukrainians paid.

One response came from a veteran who noted that being willing to pay the ultimate price for one’s country and surviving was a gift that was repaid over and over throughout his life. “I know exactly what it is like to accept that you are a dead man,” he said. What most closely mirrored my own experience was a respondent who noted her lack of payment in blood, sweat or tears, yet chose to volunteer in helping others exercise their freedom.

Personally, my price includes service to our nation, too. The price I paid was the loss of my former life, which included a husband, a home and a seemingly secure job to enter the political fray with a message of partisan healing and hope for the future. This work isn’t risking my life, but it’s the price I’ve paid.

Sign up for The Fulcrum newsletter

Given the earnest question we asked, and the meager responses, I am also left wondering if we think at all about the price of freedom? Or have we all become so entitled to our freedom that we fail to defend freedom for others? Or was the question poorly timed?

I read another respondent’s words as an indicator of his pacifism. And another veteran who simply stated his years of service. And that was it. Four responses to a question that lives in my heart every day. We look forward to hearing Your Take on other topics. Feel free to share questions to which you’d like to respond.

Keep ReadingShow less
No, autocracies don't make economies great

libre de droit/Getty Images

No, autocracies don't make economies great

Tom G. Palmer has been involved in the advance of democratic free-market policies and reforms around the globe for more than three decades. He is executive vice president for international programs at Atlas Network and a senior fellow at the Cato Institute.

One argument frequently advanced for abandoning the messy business of democratic deliberation is that all those checks and balances, hearings and debates, judicial review and individual rights get in the way of development. What’s needed is action, not more empty debate or selfish individualism!

In the words of European autocrat Viktor Orbán, “No policy-specific debates are needed now, the alternatives in front of us are obvious…[W]e need to understand that for rebuilding the economy it is not theories that are needed but rather thirty robust lads who start working to implement what we all know needs to be done.” See! Just thirty robust lads and one far-sighted overseer and you’re on the way to a great economy!

Keep ReadingShow less