The focus of last week’s Juneau World Affairs Forum was the rise of authoritarianism in the 21st century. Our guest speakers noted the fertile ground that extreme polarization creates for authoritarian movements to thrive. When asked how we can individually and collectively counter these threats, our speaker from Connecticut commented that he thought Alaska was already showing the way: through open primaries and ranked choice voting. He’s on to something important with our elections system. It compels me to urge you to vote no on Ballot Measure 2.

Under Alaska’s system of open primaries any Alaskan voter, regardless of political affiliation, can cast a ballot for any candidate, also regardless of political affiliation, in the primary election. The top four candidates advance to the general election when voters may, but are not required to, rank their candidates in order of preference. If one candidate emerges with a majority of first place votes, that candidate is elected. If, however, no candidate achieves a majority, then the candidate with the fewest votes has his/her ballots redistributed to the second choice recorded on each ballot. This process continues until one candidate has a majority.

There are two general principles behind this system: First, all voters, not just those aligned with a particular party, should determine the field of candidates on the general election ballot. Second, candidates with the most support among voters should be elected. One consequence of these principles is that candidates are motivated to conduct civil campaigns, ones that appeal to a wider audience than strictly party-affiliated voters. These principles also encourage elected officials to work with all people and ideas to solve problems, rather than being limited to party-approved rhetoric — because they are accountable to the whole electorate rather than just the party faithful.

These principles were put to the test in 2022 in two compressed election cycles: a special election to replace Congressman Don Young and the regular election. Anecdotally, campaign conduct was much more civil. A much more diverse array of candidates sought office and were elected. Frictions seen in the immediately preceding legislatures (extended delays in organization, for example) were minimal and the legislative bodies worked well together. Open primaries and ranked choice voting do not guarantee these outcomes, but they’re off to a promising start.

Some have claimed that the open primary and ranked choice voting wrongly diminish the role of political parties. It is true that parties are no longer the exclusive gatekeepers of who may appear on the general election ballot. In my view, however, that’s an improvement — and not just for voters. It creates an opportunity for the parties to evolve and become better aligned with the public’s wishes. We can look forward to party conventions that strive to compose platforms that have broad appeal. Finally, one would be hard-put to argue that the parties are less-strenuously fighting for their candidates on the November 5 ballot than in past years. All of this points to a healthy democracy. Yet Ballot Measure 2 would abandon this progress and return us to closed primaries.

Let’s keep the open primary and ranked choice voting. Vote No on 2.

• Bruce Botelho is chair of Alaskans for Better Elections which opposes Ballot Measure 2. He is a former mayor of Juneau and Alaska attorney general.