Missing from many articles about Alaska’s Ranked Choice Voting (RCV) decision is what headlined the initiative that barely passed (51%). The first two lines of that proposal read: “Prohibit the use of dark money by independent expenditure groups working to influence candidate elections in Alaska and require additional disclosures by these groups.” The full initiative ran another seven lines and included RCV, but borrowing from another online commenter, that often means Really Confused Voters.
Reading the first two lines of the initiative might have made some voters overlook all the issues. But that is a standard tactic to bundle a borderline issue with something more likely to gain approval, like prohibiting “dark money.”
This year’s Ballot Measure 2 offers voters a chance to consider RCV all by itself.
Alaska’s Official Election Pamphlet (OEP) does not address my point in its pro and con pages 102 and 103, but if you want to do your own research, go back and check what voters were told when RCV was offered originally to voters. If you think RCV is simple, just wade through pages 78-101 of your OEP.
Having two main choices makes elections simpler. Spoiler third-party candidates might sound democratic, but often have unintended consequences, like electing a less desirable candidate. I do not like splitting my vote into pieces, but this year, RCV will have to stand on its own electoral legs to see if it sticks around.
Mike Clemens
Juneau