By SEN. ROBERT MYERS
Traditionally, the point of a primary is to figure out who will represent each party in the general election. While parties have a number of organizational functions, one function that they have for the average voter is to consolidate candidates down to different political visions so that the voters know how they will organize and govern once elected. So it makes sense for the party to pick their candidates to see which ones most closely align with that vision.
Publicly financed primaries have been around in the United States for about a century now to pick candidates. They were created as a solution to the backroom tactics of conventions and machine politics in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. People felt that the parties were acting in a way to preserve personal power of the party bosses instead of putting the best candidates forward, increasing the chances of corruption.
Public financing and organization for the primary was the solution to concentrated party power. That is the opposite message that we’re getting now, which is that primaries empower parties. Publicly run and financed primaries were created to avoid the backroom deals and favoritism involved in highly structured and disciplined parties.
Public financing opens up the debate of an open vs closed primary. In effect, should only the members of a party have a say in who represents that party, or should all voters, even members of opposing parties, have a say in who carries the party banner? Alaska found a compromise in the 1990s with a semi-open primary. Any voter can pick who represents a party unless they are declared a member of a different party. So Republicans can pick who represents their party, but they can’t pick who represents the Democrat party label, and vice versa. Independent voters still have the choice to vote in the primary for either party. That’s a fair compromise when over half of the state’s voters aren’t declared members of a party. And really, when I have declared an allegiance to a party, should I have a say in who represents the opposing side?
The jungle primary that was installed by the ballot initiative in 2020 eliminates all of that. It’s not an open primary; it’s a jungle primary. It forwards four candidates to the general election, regardless of party affiliation. So why do we have a primary?
Under ranked choice voting, we could just save the time and money by getting rid of the primary completely. In this year’s governor race, I could have been happy ranking a half dozen of the candidates. So why limit our choices to one pick to limit the general to four candidates?
While we can come up with a variety of theoretical justifications for it, the jungle primary has one important practical effect. It narrows the field down to the people with money, name recognition, and organization. It is tailor-made to benefit the political insiders. It benefits them by limiting their chances of inadvertently losing through exhausted ballots. That’s why the Democrat party sued to keep Eric Hafner off the general election ballot in 2024. They knew that he would never win, but he could hurt their preferred candidate’s chances by creating exhausted ballots from bullet voters who would reduce the majority needed for the opposing candidate to win.
The supporters of RCV and the jungle primary say that they want to diminish party influence and return power to the power to the people. But the true effect is completely the opposite. Removing party influence doesn’t mean that power would return to the people. It means that other organizations will fill in that power vacuum. Parties are far from perfect, but they are a recognized method of organization with a measure of transparency and regulation. The alternative is these dark networks that make it hard to see who is supporting whom. That leaves voters more in the dark on how people will govern once elected.
We can see the effects of that transfer of power from the parties to dark networks with the shenanigans that we’ve seen in the statewide races this year. Before the primary, we saw groups affiliated with the Republican and Democrat parties promoting fringe candidates in the two Congressional races to make the top 4. The point is to pull votes from the other side and reduce the main candidate’s support through exhausted ballots. It’s effectively the same strategy as the old system of either promoting the weaker candidate in the opposing primary or promoting the third party or independent candidate to pull votes from the main opposition.
Then we have more games going on after the primary as we look at who drops out to benefit whom. The Democrats have played the game the best because they started the governor’s race with fewer candidates. They started with three, had one drop before the primary, and used the primary to pick just one candidate to advance to the general with the other dropping out. At least part of that plan appears to have been agreed to before the primary in a closed-door meeting.
While it might not have been orchestrated beforehand, it appears that they did the same thing in 2022 to get Peltola on the ballot without another liberal candidate on the ballot once Al Gross dropped out. Republicans used that strategy in 2024 for the US House race with two viable candidates, but it doesn’t work in the governor’s race this year because we had too many candidates to begin with and no clear frontrunner (meaning close to or over half of the Republican/conservative vote from the primary).
Supporters of the top 4 primary may say that this system is supposed to return power to the people, but it’s really giving power to the most organized and disciplined minorities. We’re effectively bringing back the old convention model, removing transparency and putting more control back in the hands of backroom elites. We’re not rewarding reaching out to the middle of the electorate and working together. We’re rewarding strict organizational discipline.
Vote Yes on 2 this November to get rid of this mess. Bring back primaries where voters matter, not dark networks and disciplined elites.
Senator Robert Myers was born in Fairbanks and spent much of his young childhood at the Salchaket Roadhouse, owned by his parents. He attended the University of Alaska Fairbanks, where he studied philosophy, political science, and history. While in college, he drove for a tour company, sharing Alaska with countless visitors. He currently drives truck and travels the Dalton Highway (Haul Road) frequently. He ran for office because he wants an Alaska his children will choose to make their home down the road. When not working for his Senate District B, North Pole, he enjoys reading, history, board games, and spending time with his wife Dawna and his five kids.
One thought on “Sen. Robert Myers: Why do we have primaries?”
It’s good to see you back again. But. Your Fairbanks is falling under Democrat control. You and your interior Republicans might need to put state issues off off the stove and you interior republicans focus on taking territory back from the Democrats by getting control of your council.