An initiative is circulating in Alaska that would end the ability of political parties to nominate candidates, except in presidential elections. It would require all candidates to appear on the August primary ballot. Then, the top four candidates from the primary would be the only candidates who could appear on the general election ballot. The general election ballot would use ranked choice voting. Without ranked choice voting, the general election ballot in many cases would feature three candidates from one party, and only one from another party, which would be obviously unfair to the party with three candidates.
The initiative combines that idea with campaign finance restrictions. The description of the initiative, as shown on the petitions, starts with this sentence: “Prohibits the use of dark money by independent expenditure groups working to influence candidate elections in Alaska and require additional disclosures by these groups.”
This initiative seems to violate the rule that requires initiatives to be on single subjects. Furthermore, it is irrational for the proponents to retain the primary. If parties will no longer nominate candidates, and ranked choice voting will be used, one wonders why the primary should be retained.
The initiative makes it more difficult for parties to retain their place on the ballot. Current law lets them remain on with either a vote test or a registration test. The initiative eliminates the vote test.
Proponents need 28,501 signatures. If they complete the drive by early 2020, it would appear on the November 2020 ballot. If they take longer, it would appear on the 2022 ballot. Thanks to Rob Richie for this news.
NOOOO extremist primaries.
General election ballot access of ALL candidates via EQUAL nom petits / filing fees.
PR and AppV and TOTSOP.
So instead of Top Two Primary, it is Top Four Primary. I suppose Top Four is better than Top Two, but it is still a bad issue, and i would not support it.
It doesn’t appear that the Alaska constitution limits initiatives to a single subject.
IIUC, the initiative would permit candidates affiliated with a public group to have that affiliation appear on the ballot, so the distinction of political party/group may no longer make sense, and thus the 3% threshold probably makes no sense.
There are certain rights associated with the two largest political parties such as appointments to the APOC, counting boards, and precinct election boards, but unless there is something in presidential elections, the dis tinction between parties and groups is arbitrary.
The initiative would permit a partisan affiliated candidate to appear on the ballot as nonpartisan or undeclared, which seems deceptive to me.
IIUC, ballot qualification would be by fee only, which is only $100 in Alaska for statewide office, which opens the potential for dozens of candidates.
It would be better to make the September election the general election, and use RCV for that, terminating exclusion when the number of exhausted ballot precludes definitively determining who the last-placed candidate(s) is(are). If a ballot is exhausted, the voter did not express a preference. It is wrong to presume that the voter was indifferent to whom was elected, just because he did not express a ranking or was prevented from doing so by ballots that were designed for machines not humans. Not permitting ranking all candidates is equivalent to using gothic type or butterfly ballots.
If complete resolution is not possible, hold a runoff in November among candidates who were not excluded.
The initiative does permit a voter to indicate their preferences with numerals. It really does not make sense to use columns, which cause confusion and invalid votes.
Condorcet Form
Office
Candidate Name – Party [legis] / blank if exec/judic
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
Numbers in circles and below each circle.
Richard writes, “it is irrational for the proponents to retain the primary. If parties will no longer nominate candidates, and ranked choice voting will be used, one wonders why the primary should be retained.”
The purpose of the “primary” (quote marks necessary because top two–or top four or whatever–changes the meaning of the word “primary”) is so that voters “nominate” the candidates, rather than parties. Without the first round, all candidates would “nominate” themselves by collecting petition signatures and/or paying filing fees.
It took me a long time to understand this. I still don’t quite get why proponents of top N think that candidates have to be “nominated”, unless it has something to do with the fact that voters aren’t really comfortable with fully non-partisan elections.
@BR,
Primary continues to mean first.