171

Alaska voters reject ballot measure seeking to repeal open primaries, ranked voting system (apnews.com)

submitted 5 hours ago by MicroWave@lemmy.world to c/politics@lemmy.world

17 comments fedilink hide all child comments

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 The measure also would have repealed some campaign disclosure rules.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.

top 17 comments

sorted by: hot top new old

[-] santa@sh.itjust.works 62 points 5 hours ago

We need it nationwide.

[-] frostedtrailblazer@lemmy.zip 2 points 2 hours ago* (last edited 2 hours ago)

I think Ranked Robin or STAR voting should be used nationwide. The former is the better version of Ranked Choice voting, while the later is mathematically the same as Ranked Robin and can be used in certain Republican states where Ranked Choice voting is banned.

[+] NateNate60@lemmy.world -14 points 4 hours ago* (last edited 3 hours ago)

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.

[-] santa@sh.itjust.works 9 points 4 hours ago

Ranked voting also accomplishes this end.

[-] NateNate60@lemmy.world 2 points 3 hours ago

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.

[-] santa@sh.itjust.works 2 points 3 hours ago

I’m referring to ranked choice voting accomplishing that ending of your note. I’m not referring to run offs.

[-] NateNate60@lemmy.world 1 points 3 hours ago

"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.

[-] chaogomu@lemmy.world 2 points 4 hours ago* (last edited 4 hours ago)

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.

[-] jumping_redditor@sh.itjust.works -3 points 4 hours ago

the states individually control how they do elections

[-] iknewitwhenisawit@fedinsfw.app 10 points 3 hours ago

And every state needs to adopt it.

[-] NateNate60@lemmy.world 3 points 4 hours ago

Congress can overwrite state election rules as they pertain to federal elections.

[-] Triumph@fedia.io 1 points 4 hours ago

Only if the state rules are unconstitutional.

[-] NateNate60@lemmy.world 3 points 3 hours ago

Nope, that's false. You clearly have not read the actual clause in the Constitution and are just assuming it says what you want it to say. Congress can overwrite the state rules at any time for any reason in any way it likes with two restrictions:

The new rules cannot violate the US Constitution.
They cannot change the location that senators are chosen.

Art. 1 § 4, Cl. 1:

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.

[-] Triumph@fedia.io 1 points 2 hours ago

I stand corrected. Note that this is for congressional elections.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution-conan/article-1/section-4/clause-1/congress-and-the-elections-clause

[-] FaeriesWearBoots@sopuli.xyz 11 points 4 hours ago

It should be part of a minimum standard of democracy along with things like the ability of any constituency to recall or impeach any elected position.

[-] Rocketpoweredgorilla@lemmy.ca 7 points 4 hours ago

I screw up or don't show up to do my job I'd be kicked to the curb in a heartbeat. They shouldn't be any different.

[-] finley@lemmy.zip 7 points 4 hours ago

No reason to abandon an entire voting system just because JD Vance is too stupid to understand it

this post was submitted on 14 Nov 2026

171 points (100.0% liked)

politics

31883 readers

3730 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

Post only links to articles. Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

Articles must be relevant to US politics and contain quality and original content. Social Media adjacent hosts like Substack are allowed, but ONLY if they tie back to a company/subsidiary. No personal or friend group blogs and no self-promotion. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and re-hosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing other users of being bots or paid actors.
No memes, trolling, misinformation, or low-effort posts/comments (including reposts). If you see posts like this that anger you, do not engage. Report, block, and live a happier life than they do. Any slap-fight is subject to comment removals. Fights full of rule violations will result in temporary bans to cool off.
No manipulating votes via bots or alt accounts; this will result in permanent bans. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in an account ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be permanently banned.

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules and use critical thinking when reading, posting, and commenting. Users that repeatedly have comments or posts removed, weaponize reports, or violate the code of conduct, will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users. The reason(s) behind moderator action(s) are publicly available through the Modlog.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

• Register To Vote

• Citizenship Resource Center

• Congressional Awards Program

• Federal Government Agencies

• Library of Congress Legislative Resources

• The White House

• U.S. House of Representatives

• U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

• News