Alaska still has many postal ballots to count, and as of the evening of November 12, the vote is virtually tied. See the results here. The postal ballots have been much more favorable to Measure Two than the other ballots.
The measure makes it likely that minor party candidates will never qualify for the November ballot for Governor, U.S. Senator, or U.S. House. But it makes it easier for members of unqualified parties to get on the ballot for the legislature, because generally in legislative races there are only two or three candidates who file in the primary. And no one will need a petition to get on the primary ballot.
The measure also institutes ranked choice voting in the general election, but not the primary. The ranked choice voting in the general election extends to the presidential race.
HOW MANY FEET OF SNOW IN AK IN EARLY NOV ???
———
NOOO primaries.
ONE ELECTION DAY.
EQUAL NOM PETS
PR AND APPV – PENDING CONDORCET === RCV DONE RIGHT.
If you’re instituting ranked choice voting, why limit the number of candidates on the ballot to four? Very strange.
UUUGGGGGGGGG!!!!!
@ Liberty Green
Because the main purpose of this initiative was to blow open the Republican party and make sure Lisa Mirkowski can get re elected. The RCV stuff was tacked on probably as an afterthought to sell it better, or because they think Lisa can’t win without RCV for her next race.
After a long back and forth with one of the campaign officials they remained adamant that the ability for a candidate to petition for a general election spot will be preserved. And after reading the whole initiative it seems (in my admittedly non expert opinion) they may be right. It doesn’t seem to repeal AS 15.25.140 which is the law that allows a candidate to petition for a spot without a primary and in fact adds an amendment to it to require petition candidates be nominated under oath, whatever that may mean. It also retains the option for a write in vote and explicitly allows someone who lost the primary to continue on as a write in candidate. I still have serious issues with this initiative and think it’s both illogical (Why only have the second round with RCV? Why even hold a jungle primary at all when it’s unnecessary with RCV, and etc.) and somewhat nefarious in how it’s specifically targeting the Republican party. But as far as jungle primaries go, it seems to be the last restrictive one. It’s also nice the presidential race will use RCV. Feel free to correct me if I’m wrong Richard.
Of course this might end up being moot anyway as the legislature has the right to shit can it after 2 years, which they’ve done before to initiatives they dislike.
I thought it would never pass, especially it’s a hybrid and unique combination of RCV and Nonpartisan Primary (as ‘Top-four primary’. But, somewhat forget that Alaska tallies are slowly over there, due to their geographical location to collect the paper-ballots, over there.
But besides that, I feeling a bit happier, that Alaskan understands better, unlike Massachusetts voters.
Ranked Choice Voting was added to this initiative like sugar can be added to poison. A lot more people will swallow poison if it is coated in sugar than would swallow it otherwise.
Manaanwasgreat – AS 15.25.140 looks like it only applies to candidates without a party. Wouldn’t party nominated candidates, including Greens and Libertarians, have to go through the Top 4 open primary?
It seems weird that the Alaska LP supported this. Are they just planning to never be considered a party?
To use RCV in any single-winner election district will bring the one-party system. The only political party using the Sainte-Lague parliament seat distribution system which brings the three-party system to Prez/VP and all two-winner elections districts (Senators and Congresspersons) is limited voting.
Unfortunately no one uses limited voting correctly in the USA except Cambridge MA and they use “fill in the box” for each numerals. It’s terrible.
The three-party system is working on 2022 and 2024 now and we use the California Elector sign up form to be notarized by all 55 in California. For other states just use the form on the “Vote Here” tab at usparliament.org.
http://www.usparliament.org/votehere.php
We are just making updates now and by 1/1/2020 we start a new cycle and we’re making the adjustments for California and all state elections. The new proposed guidelines for California can be replicated to other elections everywhere for perfect math under pure proportional representation (PPR).
http://www.allpartysystem.com/blank-ca-ec.pdf
The new PPR Electoral College is ready to work with all states, territories and DC using the paper ballots marked and kept as proof. But there is no way to bogus one-party and two-party voting systems because only PPR is mathematically perfect.
as @Manaanwasgreat wrote ‘Why even hold a jungle primary at all when it’s unnecessary with RCV’
That is so true. Partly this is because we in the US are so use to a primary and feel one is needed even if the voting system makes it irrelevant. At the same time we have lost sight of a primary’s purpose.
https://www.elections.alaska.gov/Core/officialelectionpamphlets.php
by region
—–
https://www.elections.alaska.gov/Core/ballotmeasuresonballot.php
19AKBE
—–
full text
https://www.elections.alaska.gov/petitions/19AKBE/19AKBE-TheBill.pdf
PDF – mere 26 pages
—-
13 Nov 2020 – Friday
deadline for abs ballots from USA colonies.
ie- *final* results next week.
—–
Will top 4 infect other States ???
Stay tuned.
No petition to get on the primary ballot? That’s cool. Obviously another bit of sugar to sweeten the castor oil. Hopefully, that provision will stay.
Really bad mice from anyone in the LP of Alaska to get behind this initiative.
Move, not mice. Actually, rat would be more appropriate.
If this measure is successful, it indicates that any election reform may require a mixed bag of different reforms to get enough support.
I predict that if mandatory open primaries become the norm, political parties will rediscover the nominating convention to keep their troops in line.
if Top Four passes, I wonder what happens first.. non-D/R parties (and independent candidates) getting into races where they’d be guaranteed one of the 4 spots due to a lack of D/R candidates, or more D/R candidates running for the state legislature if they feel like they can easily advance to November without being a spoiler
This likely isn’t a good thing for most non-D/R candidates in the statewide level races in Alaska, aside from prominent indy candidates. But it’s possible there is upside on the state legislative level.
Also, without reading the measure.. does it address the method of how Governor/Lt. Governor tickets are nominated in Alaska? Right now, they’re nominated in separate primaries and married together on a ticket (like how it’s done in Hawaii, Massachusetts, New Mexico, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin and how it used to be done in Illinois). But Top Four almost makes the most logistical system one where Governor candidates designate runningmates in the primary.
AK Const
https://ltgov.alaska.gov/information/alaskas-constitution/
2-1
The legislative power of the State is vested in a legislature consisting of a senate with a membership of twenty and a house of representatives with a membership of forty.
—
SMALL numbers = total oligarchy.
2-2
A member of the legislature shall be a qualified voter who has been a resident of Alaska for at least three years and of the district from which elected for at least one year, immediately preceding his filing for office. A senator shall be at least twenty-five years of age and a representative at least twenty-one years of age.
2-3
Legislators shall be elected at general elections. Their terms begin on the fourth Monday of the January following election unless otherwise provided by law. The term of representatives shall be two years, and the term of senators, four years. One-half of the senators shall be elected every two years.
Editor’s Note. The legislature has provided that the terms of legislators begin on the second Monday in January following a presidential election year and on the third Tuesday in January following a gubernatorial election year. See AS 24.05.080.
—
Most State consts specify term starting times — to NOT have law machinations.
—
Article VI – Legislative Apportionment
multiple machinations
Oregon — ALL paper absentee ballots
https://sos.oregon.gov/elections/Documents/Daily-Ballot-Returns.pdf
note the 9 parties stats.
How soon in ALL areas ???
NO diseased over heated polling places ???
full text
https://www.elections.alaska.gov/petitions/19AKBE/19AKBE-TheBill.pdf
PDF – mere 26 pages
—-
13 Nov 2020 – Friday
deadline for abs ballots from USA colonies
IE FINAL RESULTS NEXT WEEK
@WalterZiobro
I don’t think this means a mixture of reforms are necessary for passage. The Massachusetts one was actually fairly close (below a 5% difference) and if it weren’t for coronavirus they probably could have pushed it over the finish line. I think Alaska had some distinct advantages. Primarily being a small population and a really pitiful opposition campaign. I paid attention to the campaign and they really hyped up the ranked choice voting part and not so much the Top 4 primary part. That is pretty telling.
I am not surprised at all that the proponents hyped up the Ranked Choice Voting part of the initiative, while downplaying the Top 4 part. Ranked Choice Voting was the sugar coating, and Top 4 is the poison.
As a Massachusetts voter, I was a bit surprised by the loss of Q2 (RCV) The opposition wasn’t organized, and seemed based on fear of something new. I had expected easy passage because the party that needed it the most (Democrats) was behind it, and Democratic primaries can get crowded in Mass because that’s where much of the action is. The Republicans are pathetic at recruiting candidates, whether liberals(we still have some liberal Republicans in Mass) or conservatives are in charge, and third party and independent candidates are frustrated by petitioning requirements that work against them. In fact, the paucity of non-Democrats on the general election ballot seemed to work against Q2 because many voters just didn’t see the need.
@Manaanwasgreat.
See Section 72 of the initiative. AS 15.25.140 is repealed.
The current version of AS 15.25.100 specifies that party nominees are placed on the general election ballot, the following sections are provisions for petition candidates.
The initiative replaces AS 15.25.100 with the specification that the Top 4 advance to the general election ballot, and then repeals the alternatives.
The ability to run as a write-in in the general election is maintained, as is the ban on write-ins in the primary. Ballot access for primary candidates is quite reasonable. $100 for statewide, $30 for legislative candidates. So the initiative eliminates the petition barrier for non-qualified part candidates.
Alaska has never required any petition for candidates to get on a primary ballot. There is no change in Alaska on that score. Most states don’t require any signatures for a candidate to get on a primary ballot.
Beg to differ a bit –
in larger pop States there are primary election nominating petitions for various offices – partisan and non-partisan.
Demo Rep, whether or not there is a petition requirement to get on a primary ballot varies from state to state.
REAL REFORMS —
ONE Election Day — NOOO primaries
EQUAL NOM PETS ONLY FOR BALLOT ACCESS
PR AND APPV — PENDING CONDORCET
TOTSOP
@BH,
Governor/Lt. Governor will run as a tandem in the primary and general.
Primary ballot access is by a small fee ($30 for the legislature) and a voter msy indicate that they are affiliated with a political body (Libertarian, Constitution, Green, OWL, UCES Clowns, even joke parties like the Moderate party). This eliminates the need for a petition.
In California and Washington races such as governor and US Senator have drawn dozens of candidates. Top 4 will reduce this to a manageable number. Who is going to rank 35 candidates?
A different method would be Top 80%, where leading candidates with 80% of the vote would advance. The last candidate to advance would establish a threshold. The remaining candidates would be eliminated one by one transferring their votes to other candidates. Any candidates that exceed the threshold would advance (transfers would be based on lists provided by candidates before the primary). Alsdo permit majority election in the primary.
@RW,
The point is that without party qualification and state-regulated partisan nominations, all candidates have the same ballot access.
Should electoral systems that employee partisan primaries be referred to as zoological primaries?
Candidates and voters are in cages.
@Jim Riley
Ah, thanks for that, I missed that. Worrying that their official spokesmen don’t seem to even know what’s in their own initiative. Yikes.
@Jim Riley
No RCV election in America utilizes compulsory rankings. Every single one of them uses optional preference voting, so no one has to rank all the candidates.
@Manaanwasgreat,
You probably backed the spokesman into a corner, and he didn’t realize that the real positive is that there is essentially no barriers to all candidates. It is easy to miss repeals. When a lawyer was drafting the language he would have edited AS 15.25.100 to convert a partisan primary to a non-partisan primary and then drawn a big ‘X’ through superfluous sections for petition candidates. These would later be collected in a repeals section. If you are analyzing a complex bill like this, it may be better to print out the current law and then mark it up.
Regarding full preferences: Some voters might vote for James Buchanan and Franklin Pierce as one and two for all-time best president, not realizing their ballot will be thrown in the trash after the second count. The last San Francisco election mayoral election might have been decided by voters failing to express preferences among the Top contenders.
Top 4 focuses attention. A 5th place candidate is not to get a come from behind win in an RCV election. Trailing candidates can make endorsements.
I’d let exhausted ballots be treated as favoring the last place continuing candidate. If that prevents exlusion just hold another election with the remaining continuing candidates. Repeat as many times as necessary.
We do like ranked-choice in single-member districts. This proposal, which has now passed, makes an attempt to use the “primary” to winnow the field, and then use the “general election” to determine the winner. Winnowing the field down to two in the primary seems harsh, and it hasn’t worked out as envisioned where it has been tried. Ireland and Australia (great countries, by the way) use one election, in which winnowing occurs “automatically” in the eliminate of candidates eliminated in each round of vote, with reallocation of their votes. In Ireland, this has resulted in many independent MPs, making formation of a government in their parliamentary system a challenge. In Australia, this system has resulted in many micro-parties, which might appeal to many readers of this site, but which poses its own problems for the formation of government. There may be no perfect system of voting (per Kenneth Arrow’s impossibility theorem). My concern is the possibility in two person run-off elections of two severely-flawed candidates qualifying for the run-off. It seems certain, with four person run-off elections combined with preference voting, that at least one of the four would appeal to a large plurality, if not an outright majority of voters.
@Jim
No one backed him into a corner. When someone else asked him about the potential downsides of Top 4, he stated the ability to petition onto the general election ballot would be preserved. I simply asked some follow up questions where he reiterated that you can still petition to be on the ballot. Looking back now though from some of his other comments I think its pretty clear he never actually read the initiative itself which is a shame for someone they made their spokesman.
@Clifford F Thies
Forming governments is usually not a difficult task in Australia. Their lower house is pretty two party dominated. If your concern is coalition governments, you don’t need to “winnow” the field, you can just keep single seated districts. Then you’d get something that looks like Australia’s lower house. Minor parties still play a role in regards to preference transfers but the two major parties still run the show.