Alaska Ranked Choice Voting in November Didn’t Help Minor Party Candidates

Usually ranked choice voting boosts the vote for minor party candidates. That was true in Maine in both 2020 and 2022. But in Alaska in 2022, it didn’t seem to help minor parties.

The only minor party candidate for a statewide office who survived the top-four primary was Chris Bye, Libertarian for U.S. House. He had placed fifth in the primary, and thus did not originally qualify for the November ballot. But when one of the candidates who had qualified dropped out, Bye advanced. However, in the general election, he got 1.73% of the first choice votes.

In the past, Libertarians running for U.S. House in Alaska have recently done far better than that. These are the percentages for the Libertarian for U.S. House in all past Alaska elections: 2000 1.76%; 2002 1.67%; 2004 2.39%; 2006 1.72%; 2012 5.20%; 2014 7.65%; 2016 10.35%. In all these instances, both major parties had a candidate.

The Alaskan Independence Party candidates for statewide offices were all kept off the general election ballot, due to failing to place high enough in the primary. They had tried in the gubernatorial race and the U.S. Senate race. Libertarians were also kept off the ballot in all the statewide races other than U.S. House.

In the legislative races, there were no races with more than four candidates filing for the primary, so the top-four system didn’t have any restrictive effect. In the general election for legislature, when ranked choice voting was in existence, there was no legislative race with a minor party candidate in which the winner received less than 50% with first place votes, so no second choice votes were counted.


Comments

Alaska Ranked Choice Voting in November Didn’t Help Minor Party Candidates — 8 Comments

  1. The only way ranked choice voting works to make independents and third party candidates factors is by having each party/label nominate one candidate per race (the way it should be)

  2. @Derek… That or the multi-member district version of RCV called Single Transferable (ideally still only nominating no more candidates per party than the amount of seats to be filled).

  3. @ Derek:

    IMO, the best way to do that is to treat the party label as a proprietary trademark of each party, to be awarded by the party itself according to its own rules, to whichever candidates achieve ballot status. It should be up to each party whether to endorse one, or more candidates, according to its own rules.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.