Tag Archives: rank choice voting

“Ranked-choice voting continues to work in Alaska. It would everywhere else, too.”

alternative voting systems, primaries

Washington Post’s Editorial Board comes out in favor of RCV, arguing it is working well in both Alaska and Maine to select more moderate candidates that are more likely to reflect the preferences of electoral majorities, and that it is not confusing:

“Ranked-choice voting continues to work in Alaska. It would everywhere else, too.”Apart from accusations that it favors Democrats, which haven’t been borne out, the biggest knock on RCV is that it’s too confusing for people to rank candidates. But studies show that virtually all ballots cast in RCV elections are valid, with error rates similar to those of traditional elections. Usually, after trying it once, people become more comfortable with ranking candidates when they realize that they don’t need to vote strategically, worrying about throwing away their vote by supporting as their first choice someone who is unlikely to win.”

I do wonder how well RCV would transfer to larger, less rural states. Alaska and Maine are certainly not representative, and neither is subject to the same national forces as, say, Pennsylvania.

Share this:

“Effort to repeal ranked choice voting and open primaries in Alaska on track to narrowly fail after latest ballot count”

absentee ballots, primaries, , ,

From Anchorage Daily News:

“Results posted Monday showed 50.03% of voters opposed the measure repealing ranked choice voting, while 49.97% were in favor of the repeal. Just 192 votes separated the two camps, with more ballots set to be counted.”

A final count is expected on November 20, the final day for accepting absentee ballots from overseas.

Share this:

“Ranked Choice Voting: What Happened & What’s Next”

primaries, , , ,

Michael Parsons (FairVote, Senior Legal Fellow) and  Meredith Sumpter (FairVote CEO) offer reflections at Democracy Takes on what the results of the 2024 ballot initiatives tell us about the future of rank-choice voting as a reform. A peek here:

“In 2016, only two million Americans lived in the 10 cities using RCV. As of today, that number has grown to nearly 17 million Americans in over 50 cities, counties, and states. The number has grown because the reform works, giving voters greater say and incentivizing elected officials to get things done for their constituents. 

On Election Day, the number grew yet again, but we also fell far short of what we had hoped . . . . As might be expected, some long-standing critics of RCV have seized on the state-level losses and are offering a typical post-election analysis: “Why the results prove I was right all along.”

But there’s a difference between hot takes and hard work. And it’s difficult to imagine any major election reform that would have sailed to victory this year. There were numerous election reforms on the ballot in addition to ranked choice voting – including independent redistricting commissions and open primaries. All have won statewide victories in recent years. This cycle, all of them failed at the statewide level.”

Share this:

New Issue: Fordham Law Voting Rights and Democracy Forum

redistricting, Uncategorized, ,

Tired of the 24 hour news cycle? Check out the final issue of the inaugural Fordham Law’s Voting Rights and Democracy Forum. With articles written by both established scholars in the field and JD candidates, it is a refreshing change of pace. Richard Briffault argues that New York’s first round of independent redistricting was an “epic fail.“

“In 2014, following passage in two successive legislatures, New York voters ratified amendments to the state constitution to change both the process and substantive rules governing the decennial redistricting of the state’s legislature and congressional delegation. . . . . Sadly, the new process employed in the 2022 redistricting was an epic fail. This Essay examines the first test of this new constitutional procedure and contends that the IRC, the state legislature, and the subsequent judicial intervention, all flunked it.”

Other crisp and timely articles in the volume include:

Voting Rights and the Electoral Process: Resolving Representation Issues Due to Felony Disenfranchisement and Prison Gerrymandering

Third Parties and the Electoral College: How Ranked Choice Voting Can Stop the Third-Party Disruptor Effect

Share this:

So, How’s Rank Choice Voting Working out for Alaska?

cumulative voting,

Like me, some of you may only recently have gotten interested in rank-choice voting. One-week out, I found myself curious: How is RCV playing out in Alaska? First, and foremost, the process seems to be working smoothly and the vast majority of voters are reporting the method is straightforward. With the caveat that final results will not be known until November 23, it also appears that the process this round, at least, is favoring incumbents for state-wide office. It should also be said that the incumbents appear significantly more moderate than the outside-challengers–so maybe RCV is doing what it is meant to do. Meanwhile, the Alaska statehouse appears likely to reconvene with a bipartisan majority coalition, as Alaska Democrats make gains.

Interestingly, voter turnout in Alaska this cycle appears to be “far below the high water mark set in the 2014 and 2018 midterm elections, when around 285,000 Alaskans cast their ballots.” Some are predicting that the number of Alaskans participating in this election may be the lowest since 2010. This could be a product of RCV. It could be election fatigue from the August special election. But is also could be an artifact of numbers. In 2016, Alaska adopted automatic voter registration, increasing the number of registered voters by more than 70,000. At the same time, the state has lost thousands of residents. That probably still leaves 2018 as a genuine high-water mark for midterm turnout, but it might problematize some of the other comparison points.

Share this:

Rank Choice Voting: A Scaleable Reform?

alternative voting systems, voting

As more jurisdictions are considering introducing rank choice voting (the issue will be on the ballot in Nevada this fall), Politico offers this long-form essay on Alaska’s experience. Can Alaska “point the way to a more moderate, more nuanced way of doing politics”? Or is rank choice voting a product of Alaska’s uniquely independent culture? Politico spoke to Ivan Moore, “a longtime Alaska pollster who is considered one of the foremost experts on the state’s politics.”

“Number one, that ranked choice voting worked well. Pretty flawless performance by the Alaska Division of Elections.

. . .

[Sarah Palin lost because] Sarah Palin is indeed very unpopular.”

Interestingly, the relationship of a state’s culture to the potential for reform is a longstanding question. Early adopters of vote by mail, early voting, and same-day registration, for example, were often states that already had high turnout. This often led political scientists (and I believed them) to conclude the reforms were not scaleable. But 2020 seems to have proved them wrong.

By way of clarification, even if the Nevada ballot initiative is successful, the earliest the reform could be implemented is 2026. Amendment to the state constitution must be passed in two consecutive cycles. Rank choice voting is on the ballot in nine jurisdictions this fall, but the rest are at the municipal level.

Share this: