Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Top Stories

The U.S. House of Representatives has a governing problem: Alaska has some answers

The U.S. House of Representatives has a governing problem: Alaska has some answers
Getty Images

Sherman is press director for Unite America, a philanthropic venture fund that invests in nonpartisan election reform to foster a more representative and functional government.

The U.S. House of Representatives has a governing problem. From a near-shutdown to an inability to elect a Speaker, these past several weeks have further exposed the polarizing incentives driven by America’s system of party primaries. In a narrowly-divided House, just a handful of representatives elected by a tiny fraction of the population in primaries have the power to cause chaos.


According to new research from the Unite America Institute, Alaska may provide some state-based solutions to this nationwide problem. The Alaska Model examines the impact of the state’s historic top-four nonpartisan primary on state politics and governance. Used for the first time in 2022, the new system gave Alaskans the most "meaningful votes" in the nation. The share of Alaskans casting meaningful votes increased by nearly 60% over 2020 to 35%, which is about three times the national average.

Unite America developed the meaningful votes metric to help the public understand how many voters cast ballots in competitive elections that are not effectively pre-determined based on party affiliation alone. For example, a voter casts a meaningful vote in a general election in a district where either party has a chance of winning, or in the case of Alaska, where there are two or more candidates from the same party.

Alaska’s top-four nonpartisan primary has also encouraged more cooperative governance. Following the 2022 elections, bipartisan majority coalitions formed in both the Alaska House and Senate. While bipartisan majority coalitions are not uncommon in the Alaska Legislature, it’s highly unusual for them to occur in both chambers at the same time. This kind of bipartisan coalition is unlikely to occur in the U.S. House because unlike Alaska, the vast majority of members have to win a partisan primary.

“Two simple but powerful things are now true about Alaska’s elections: Every eligible voter has the freedom to vote for any candidate in every taxpayer-funded election, and politicians have to win a majority to take office,” said Nick Troiano, executive director of Unite America and author of the forthcoming book The Primary Solution. “When lawmakers are elected by the majority of voters, they’re more likely to represent that majority. That’s true in Alaska, but clearly not in the U.S. House of Representatives.”

Here’s how Alaska’s top-four system works. All candidates, regardless of party, appear on a unified primary ballot. The top four finishers advance to the general election, which is decided by an instant runoff.

Because of that election system, the report finds, Alaskan elections saw a dramatic increase in competition. In 2022, the number of uncontested races dropped to 12%, the lowest in a decade. Additionally, about 30% of state legislative seats were won by less than 55% of the vote, nearly double the recent historical average.

Finally, Alaska’s top-four nonpartisan primary appears to mitigate political extremism, producing candidates that better represent the electorate. This is particularly evident when you look at the 2022 statewide results: In the same election, Alaska voters chose moderate Republican Sen. Lisa Murkowski, moderate Democratic Rep. Mary Peltola, and conservative Republican Gov. Mike Dunleavy. It’s likely that Murkowski and Peltola would have lost partisan primaries to more ideologically extreme opponents. But the majority of Alaskans supported them, so they won under the new system.

The Alaska Model is Unite America Institute’s third Solution Series report examining the impacts of nonpartisan primaries. Previous research looked at Louisiana, which abolished partisan primaries in the 1970s, and California, which implemented top-two nonpartisan primaries in 2012. Leading center-right think tank R Street recently published research on Washington’s top-two system.

While each state pursued a slightly different solution to the “Primary Problem,” the evidence shows that nonpartisan primaries give voters more meaningful participation, make elections more competitive, and yield more representative leaders.

“The findings of our Solutions Series are clear: Primary reform works,” said Troiano.

Complete details on “Alaska's Election Model: How the top-four nonpartisan primary system improves participation, competition, and representation” can be found at this report link.


Read More

Person holding "Vote" sign.

Person holding "Vote" sign.

Photo provided

Latino Voters Shift Ahead of Midterm Elections

Two years after providing historic levels of support that helped propel Donald Trump back to the White House, Latino voters are shifting rapidly away from the Republican Party. The realignment is driven by a potent combination of persistent economic anxieties and a sharp backlash against the administration’s aggressive domestic immigration crackdowns. A landmark national poll conducted by NBC News and Telemundo reveals that the President’s approval rating among registered Latino voters has plummeted to just 27%, signaling deep political turbulence for the GOP on the eve of critical midterm elections.

When asked by reporters outside the White House about the plunging numbers, President Trump angrily dismissed the data, labeling the findings as “fake news.”

Keep ReadingShow less
Person placing ballot in voting box

Person placing ballot in voting box

Getty Images

Who Gave the Federal Government the Right to Decide Who Can Vote?

The Trump administration is pressing to remove noncitizens from voter rolls across the country. Yet an important question seems to be missing from the debate: Where, exactly, does the federal government get the authority to impose a citizenship requirement on federal elections? The Constitution does not make citizenship a universal qualification for voting. Instead, Article I, Section 2, Clause 1 states: “The Electors in each State shall have the Qualifications requisite for Electors of the most numerous Branch of the State Legislature.” At the same time, Article I, Section 4, Clause 1 explicitly grants Congress authority over the conduct of federal elections: “The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations, except as to the Places of chusing Senators.” In Arizona v. Inter Tribal Council of Arizona, Inc. (2013), the U.S. Supreme Court distinguished Congress’s power to regulate how federal elections are conducted from the states’ authority to determine voter qualifications, explaining that Congress may regulate the “Times, Places and Manner” of elections, “but not who may vote in them.” For much of American history, noncitizens voted in elections in at least 22 states and territories, and some historical research suggests the number may have been as high as 40. Today, certain noncitizens are still permitted to vote in local elections in California, Maryland, Vermont and the District of Columbia. If the Constitution leaves voter qualifications to the states, what gives the federal government the authority to demand otherwise?

A Long History of State Decisions

Keep ReadingShow less
USA Presidential voters on electoral college map

USA Presidential voters on electoral college map

Getty Images

The National Popular Vote Interstate Compact Federalism at Its Best

Federalism operates at its peak when states collaborate as a unified network rather than acting as isolated silos. While the American system traditionally views states as competitive "laboratories of democracy," pure isolationism limits policy success. When states pool resources, align regulations, and share data, they solve national problems faster without expanding federal bureaucracy.

The National Popular Vote Interstate Compact (NPVIC) represents federalism at its best by using explicit constitutional state powers to modernize the presidential election system without a constitutional amendment.

Keep ReadingShow less