Alaska voters have rejected the latest attempt to repeal the state’s system of open primaries and ranked choice voting in general elections.
The ballot measure, decided as part of the Nov. 3 election, marked the second time in two years that voters have rejected attempts to overturn the system and revert to partisan primaries and to general elections in which just one candidate can be selected. The measure also would have repealed some campaign disclosure rules.
Voters in 2020 narrowly adopted the new system, which was used for the first time in 2022. Supporters of open primaries and ranked voting say it gives voters more choices and forces candidates to build a broader coalition of support. They also say it’s had a moderating effect on the state Legislature, which has been governed under bipartisan coalitions in recent years.
Opponents, including Donald Trump, say it’s confusing. He has railed against the system for years. Elon Musk was among the donors trying to the repeal effort.
I oppose this. Instant-runoff voting (edit: also known as ranked-choice voting in North America) hasn’t produced much more political diversity and it didn’t lead to a breaking of the two-party system. I think a proportional system like mixed-member proportional might be better for letting in smaller parties and diversifying representation.
Ranked voting also accomplishes this end.
No, it clearly has not. Identify one member of the US Congress elected by instant-runoff voting who isn’t from one of the two major parties.
I’m referring to ranked choice voting accomplishing that ending of your note. I’m not referring to run offs.
“Instant-runoff voting” is the generic name for what is called “ranked-choice voting” in North America, “alternative vote” in the UK, and “preferential voting” in Australia.
Instant-runoff voting and ranked-choice voting are one and the same.
Except it doesn’t at all.
All Ordinal voting systems trend towards two party dominance. Because all Ordinal voting systems have some degree of spoiler effect.
The Marquis de Condorcet wrote about the mathematical flaws of a system identical to Ranked Choice back in 1785. His chief complaint was that it could not reliably elect the pair-wise winner, that is, the person who would win a one on one election against every other candidate. Condorcet found that the more candidates that you add, the less likely you’ll see the pair-wise winner be elected.
There is hope, Cardinal voting systems exist, and tend to work better the more candidates you have (to a point).
STAR was designed back in 2014. It’s good.