By ED MARTIN
Sept. 20, 2026 – An Alaskan casts one ballot for governor. The ballot names one first choice and may name additional choices in order. When candidates are eliminated, the count proceeds through further rounds. That process raises a fair constitutional question:
Does a voter still have one vote when a ballot can be counted for different candidates in different rounds, while another voter’s ballot stops participating altogether?
The first distinction is essential. A ranked ballot does not count for two candidates in the same round. If its first choice is eliminated, the ballot may count for the next candidate the voter marked. No candidate, party, or election official gets to invent a later choice for that voter. Counting the ballot again in a later round is a transfer of the voter’s stated preference, not a second ballot cast by someone else.
But that does not end the inquiry. A voter may rank only one candidate, whether from conviction, distrust of the others, or a desire to cast a single choice. If that candidate is eliminated, the ballot has no remaining choice to count. It was counted in the earlier round; it does not participate in the final one. Other voters’ ballots may continue because those voters supplied additional rankings.
Is that equal treatment? Supporters of the system answer that every voter has the same opportunity to rank candidates and every active ballot carries one vote per round. Critics answer that the final decision may be made by fewer people than cast valid ballots, and that describing the winner simply as having “a majority” can obscure whose ballots remained. Both points must be confronted without pretending that one voter has secretly been given multiple simultaneous votes.
Consider 100 voters. If 20 ballots have no remaining ranked candidate, 80 remain active in the last round. A candidate who receives 41 of those 80 wins a majority of the active ballots, but receives votes from 41 of the original 100 voters. “A majority in the final round” and “a majority of all voters who cast valid ballots” are not necessarily the same statement.
That difference is especially consequential in a governor’s race where candidates and parties are publicly debating whether voters should rank rivals, rank only a favorite, or suspend campaigns while names remain on the ballot. A campaign suspension cannot supply a voter’s second choice. Nor can a party claim the rankings of its supporters as its own. The ballot belongs to the individual Alaskan who marked it.
The constitutional test deserves careful wording. “One person, one vote” concerns equality of voting power; it does not automatically require every ballot to express a preference between the final two candidates. The existence of an inactive ballot, by itself, does not prove an unconstitutional election. Nor does the fact that a ballot transfers prove that its voter voted twice. A serious challenge would have to identify the particular legal rule or practice that denies equal treatment or unlawfully burdens a voter’s choice.
Still, Alaskans can demand answers that make the result intelligible. For every round, how many ballots counted for each candidate? How many became inactive, and for what reason? How many valid ballots entered the count? What share of those original ballots supported the winner in the final round, and what share of active final-round ballots supported the winner? Those figures let the public distinguish an election result from a slogan about the result.
This is not a game show. Elimination rounds choose a person who will exercise public power. Alaska owes its voters an exact account of what happened to their ballots, including the ballots that stopped participating. One person, one vote must begin with this assurance: only the voter supplies the choices on the ballot, and the public can see plainly how each round produced the winner.
Edward Martin Jr. lives in Soltotna.
23 thoughts on “Ed Martin: One person, one vote and what happens when a ranked ballot runs out?”
If this RCV ‘rigged’ voting scheme is not defeated, wait for Citizen Vigilante’s to take matters into their own hands, so as to right the wrongs and re-establish fair and equitable // legal society. The current trajectory we’ve been living thru is definitely unsustainable and causing stress and frustration. A good step in the right direction is to restore Election Integrity, and we can do that by voting “YES” on Ballot Measure #2.
Next, we need to start electing ‘true’ conservatives at the State and Local levels. We’re missing too many good opportunities and we’re spending foolishly, with the current clowns in elected leadership … It’s time for wise adults to take back control.
Rob B, Whatever…. I quote ADN, “Nearly 167,000 Alaskans cast ballots in this year’s primary election, one of the highest turnouts for a primary in more than a decade. The ballots cast represented about 27.7% of the state’s roughly 602,000 registered voters. This year’s total is substantially higher than the roughly 109,000 ballots cast out of 605,000 registered voters in the most recent 2024 primary.” Granted, the general election gets better turnout but, the fact is, most registered voters don’t even vote.
Very well put argument against Ranked Choice Voting and one that should be brought before the Supreme Court. The Democrats have made a mockery of “one man, one vote”. They have bastardized a simple process and made it needlessly complicated for political gain.
This kind of person of Soldotna and Kenai is turning the region blue. You try to explain thoroughly the RCV to ant already confused people while letting democrats explain why their system works like it does,
You know what you Republicans of Kenai peninsula need to do come back to Anchorage where reality will teach you how to talk a straight talk.
Bottom line RCV gives the voter only one choice and the voters if they really want That one candidate winning. Then only by 50 plus 1 percent unity does it. No matter how many other candidates to choose between and they got 20,17, 23 percent. When a candidate gets the 50plus1 percent , the deciding game is over. Unity is the sure way.
“…….what happens when a ranked ballot runs out?………..”
Like if four rounds of counts finish and not one of the candidates achieve 50% + 1 vote? I suppose it’s possible, and maybe even this November. Obviously, nobody wins, and the position goes unfilled. And why not? Play stupid games, win stupid prizes.
I believe if there is a tie between the two candidates in the final runoff, it’s a coin flip., maybe the editors knows, I couldn’t find the answer.
All the No on 2 advertising talks about banning outside dark money. The information about who is footing the bill is required by law and every time it is paid for by some outside dark money pac from Washington DC or Colorado or Oregon or some other leftwing paradise.
Outside dark money funded rank voting and is defending it to this day.
Until we vote out rank choice voting, conservatives need to rank the red, 1)Bronson, 2)Taylor, 3)Wilson.
3rd:
Thanks for showing us your losing strategy. Hope you like your new fag governor. Enjoy the next four years of getting reamed. You earned it.
Hi Everyone Liberty Ed here….First ; thank you Suzanne for posting my essay, I reside in Soldotna ! Second : My ” Subject Title” in the email to you was meant to be utilized as a heading ” This is not a game show. Or Last Man Standing ” Him or She” I purposefully titled it that ! For all of us that have been paying attention, one Candidate stands out with a Pronoun recognition ( he, she, him , her, …whatever) I don’t play that game at all & neither do most conservatives, agreed!
Third: the comments show that readers are debating three different questions at once: how a ballot transfers, what happens when it becomes inactive, and what counts as a majority.
My published essay is most precise on the third question: it asks the state to show both the winner’s share of active final-round ballots and the winner’s share of all valid ballots that entered the count.
Comment(s) in order by person & what the record supports ,in response to each of them. Thank you. Commenters!
Rob B. : The assertion that RCV is “rigged” is not established by the article or comment. your reference to “vigilantes” should not be treated as a remedy to an election dispute.
Fishing for Food : My essay raises a question about equal treatment and reporting. As my essay itself says, an inactive ballot alone does not establish a constitutional violation or a case ready for the Supreme Court. Your claim about partisan motive also needs evidence.
Tina : A candidate can win once they have more than half of the active ballots. But “50% plus one” is not necessarily 50% plus one of all ballots originally cast. That distinction is the point of my essay.
Reggie Taylor :The office does not remain vacant if no candidate wins a majority of the original ballots. Alaska law says that when two or fewer candidates remain, the candidate with the greatest number of votes is elected.
3rd Generation Alaskan: on a tie !A tie between the final two follows the statutory tie and recount procedures. The provision for resolving a tie by lot addresses a tie between candidates with the fewest votes when deciding whom to eliminate. Calling every final tie a “coin flip” skips that distinction.
Steve-O: The funding claim is separate from the ballot-count question. It would need campaign-finance records tied to the specific advertisements and organizations before drawing a conclusion.
3rd Generation Alaskan: on rankings , what is the preferred ranking. Each voter decides independently whether to rank additional candidates and, if so, in what order, however it applies to everyone voting!
These counting and tie rules appear in AS 15.15.350(d)–(g). In particular, the law defines an inactive ballot more broadly than a ballot that simply runs out of named candidates: certain overvotes and skipped rankings can also cause inactivity. That sharpens the question: a round-by-round report should distinguish why ballots became inactive, not merely give one combined total.
The most useful next factual step is to take an actual Alaska ranked choice tabulation report from the Division of Elections and apply the two denominators I address in the essay to its published totals. That would let readers see exactly what the 100 -voter example describes, using real votes. the comments show that readers are debating three different questions at once: how a ballot transfers, what happens when it becomes inactive, and what counts as a majority. Your published essay is most precise on the third question: it asks the state to show both the winner’s share of active final-round ballots and the winner’s share of all valid ballots that entered the count.
Comment What the record supports
Rob B. The assertion that RCV is “rigged” is not established by the article or comment. His reference to “vigilantes” should not be treated as a remedy to an election dispute.
Fishing for Food Your essay raises a question about equal treatment and reporting. As the essay itself says, an inactive ballot alone does not establish a constitutional violation or a case ready for the Supreme Court. The comment’s claim about partisan motive also needs evidence.
Tina A candidate can win once they have more than half of the active ballots. But “50% plus one” is not necessarily 50% plus one of all ballots originally cast. That distinction is the point of your essay.
Reggie Taylor The office does not remain vacant if no candidate wins a majority of the original ballots. Alaska law says that when two or fewer candidates remain, the candidate with the greatest number of votes is elected.
3rd Generation Alaskan, on a tie A tie between the final two follows the statutory tie and recount procedures. The provision for resolving a tie by lot addresses a tie between candidates with the fewest votes when deciding whom to eliminate. Calling every final tie a “coin flip” skips that distinction.
Steve-O The funding claim is separate from the ballot-count question. It would need campaign-finance records tied to the specific advertisements and organizations before drawing a conclusion.
3rd Generation Alaskan, on rankings That is the commenter’s preferred ranking. Each voter decides independently whether to rank additional candidates and, if so, in what order.
These counting and tie rules appear in AS 15.15.350(d)–(g). In particular, the law defines an inactive ballot more broadly than a ballot that simply runs out of named candidates: certain overvotes and skipped rankings can also cause inactivity. That sharpens your question: a round-by-round report should distinguish why ballots became inactive, not merely give one combined total.
The most useful next factual step is to take an actual Alaska ranked choice tabulation report from the Division of Elections and apply the two denominators in your essay to its published totals. That would let readers see exactly what your 100-voter example describes, using real votes.
“A reader also reminded me that Alaskans must vote under the rules in force this November. I agree that understanding those rules and asking for a complete account of the count can go together.” His last words to me in an email was “This negative attitude will be the singular reason why JKT will be the next governor. I implore everyone to restrain from attempting to motivate citizens in a negative way. We are our worst enemy. Kindness is the key to this election. Do we embrace kindness? This begs the question further “Negative Kindness ” does it exist in Politics ? Liberty Ed
Sure seems like this was an AI chat bot derived comment.
Ed, you say, “”Consider 100 voters. If 20 ballots have no remaining ranked candidate, 80 remain active in the last round. A candidate who receives 41 of those 80 wins a majority of the active ballots, but receives votes from 41 of the original 100 voters. “A majority in the final round” and “a majority of all voters who cast valid ballots” are not necessarily the same statement.””
.
I don’t see the problem. Historically, anyone voting for fringe candidates, such as Libertarian or Green, have always had their vote mooted. Did you ever complain about that? In the case of RCV, if you rank the least likely to win candidate as your 1st choice, your more likely to have your nd or 3rd choice. Even those who vote for the second place finisher lose just the same as those
.
If we view this as a chess game then we see the left is better at it than the right. We should stop crying about the game and figure out how to win it. If two of the three Republicans on the ballot conceded to the other Republican immediately after the ballots were mailed out we would have a better chance. It seems we are too stubborn for such a move. The communists are not so stubborn; they are committed to winning. I pray I am wrong.
Ed, you say, “”Consider 100 voters. If 20 ballots have no remaining ranked candidate, 80 remain active in the last round. A candidate who receives 41 of those 80 wins a majority of the active ballots, but receives votes from 41 of the original 100 voters. “A majority in the final round” and “a majority of all voters who cast valid ballots” are not necessarily the same statement.””
.
I don’t see the problem. Historically, anyone voting for fringe candidates, such as Libertarian or Green, have always had their vote mooted. Did you ever complain about that? In the case of RCV, if you rank the least likely to win candidate as your 1st choice, your more likely to have your 2nd or 3rd choice. Even those who vote for the second place finisher lose just the same as those
.
If we view this as a chess game then we see the left is better at it than the right. We should stop crying about the game and figure out how to win it. If two of the three Republicans on the ballot conceded to the other Republican immediately after the ballots were mailed out we would have a better chance. It seems we are too stubborn for such a move. The communists are not so stubborn; they are committed to winning. I pray I am wrong.
Suzanne, please eliminate my two comments directly above. The only way to correct typos with this software is to re-submit. I notice all other internet comment boards enable commenters to edit after posting.
Ed, you say, “”Consider 100 voters. If 20 ballots have no remaining ranked candidate, 80 remain active in the last round. A candidate who receives 41 of those 80 wins a majority of the active ballots, but receives votes from 41 of the original 100 voters. “A majority in the final round” and “a majority of all voters who cast valid ballots” are not necessarily the same statement.””
.
I don’t see the problem. Historically, anyone voting for fringe candidates, such as Libertarian or Green, have always had their vote mooted. Did you ever complain about that? In the case of RCV, if you rank the least likely to win candidate as your 1st choice, your more likely to have your 2nd or 3rd choice re-assigned. Even those who vote for the second place finisher lose just the same as those anyone having there vote mooted in first round of re-assigning.
.
If we view this as a chess game then we see the left is better at it than the right. We should stop crying about the game and figure out how to win it. If two of the three Republicans on the ballot conceded to the other Republican immediately after the ballots were mailed out we would have a better chance. It seems we are too stubborn for such a move. The communists are not so stubborn; they are committed to winning. I pray I am wrong.
Ed’s commentary is ‘good reading.’ Let’s try this.
.
I see a lot of “Wilson, Bronson, Taylor” that parallels the primary result.
.
Many seem to have a ‘hard on’ for a woman who ‘birthed rather than aborted’ her child. [YOU are dickheads, not conservatives.]. You seem to rank things ’Bronson, Taylor, Wilson.’
.
My nation is that Taylor is eliminated first.
.
If Bronson secures more votes than Wilson after Treg hits the dumpster, then Bronson will pick up Wilson’s “second.” He would stand a chance at winning, though that chance is slim.
.
If Wilson secures more votes than Bronson after Treg hits the dumpster, then the “B, T, W” votes will expire on Treg Taylor, who is already a lost cause. Wilson will not pick up that third vote because RCV does not continue to the next active candidate, only to the next choice. Thus, greatly enhancing the possibility of a San Francisco CSF being the next governor of Alaska.
.
I don’t think folks realize just how convoluted RCV is. If nothing else is certain, vote “YES on 2.”
.
Me? At this point, I believe following the primary results is the only winning strategy for conservatives. And I voted for Bronson in the primary.
Damien, you’re leaving out the possibility of John Tomkins receiving 2nd or 3rd ranked votes from the others. Given the uninformed nature of the voters, Tomkins could easily come out on top in reallocation of votes. Especially now that he has finally shown pictures of his so-called “partner” strolling with him in Anchorage last week-end, a pretty young lady.
.
Your conclusion (ranking per the primary) is very accurate with one exception. That is, conservative voters in Alaska do not work as a herd like the leftists do. Historically, that is the reason communism keeps rearing it’s ugly head across the world.
Wayne, thank you. I think your comment helps identify exactly where the disagreement lies.
A vote for a Libertarian, Green, Republican, Democrat, independent, or any other losing candidate under a traditional plurality election is certainly a vote cast for a candidate who did not win. But I would distinguish that from what happens when a ranked-choice ballot becomes inactive.
In the traditional election, the vote does not disappear from the election record merely because its candidate loses. It remains a vote cast for that candidate and remains part of the total vote cast.
Under Alaska’s ranked-choice statute, however, a ballot can reach a point where it is no longer tabulated for any continuing candidate. AS 15.15.350(g)(2) expressly calls that an “inactive ballot.” The statute says a ballot may become inactive because it ranks no continuing candidate, because an overvote is encountered at the relevant ranking, or because of two sequential skipped rankings. And subsection (f) says an inactive ballot may not be counted for any candidate.
That is why my 100-voter example matters.
If 100 valid ballots begin the count, but only 80 remain active in the decisive round, 41 votes constitute a majority of those 80 active ballots. Mathematically, however, 41 is not a majority of the original 100 ballots.
That observation does not by itself decide whether ranked-choice voting is constitutional or unconstitutional. It identifies precisely what denominator the word “majority” refers to. Alaska’s enacted statute says that if a candidate is highest-ranked on more than one-half of the active ballots, that candidate is elected.
That distinction is what I want Alaskans to understand before we start arguing strategy.
As to whether candidates should coordinate, withdraw, campaign differently, or encourage particular ranking strategies, those are political questions. My essay was asking a different question: What exactly happens to the individual citizen’s ballot, round by round, and how should the resulting majority be described?
Damien, there is also one technical point in your comment that deserves correction because it illustrates how easy it is to misunderstand this system.
You wrote that if a voter ranked candidates “B, T, W,” and Taylor were already eliminated, the ballot would expire rather than continue to Wilson because RCV supposedly goes only to the “next choice.”
That is not how Alaska’s statute is written.
AS 15.15.350(d)(2) says that when a candidate is defeated, the vote is added to the ballot’s “next-highest-ranked continuing candidate” or becomes inactive if no such continuing candidate remains.
So, hypothetically, if a ballot were ranked:
Bronson
Taylor
Wilson
and Bronson and Taylor had both been eliminated while Wilson remained a continuing candidate, the ballot could continue to Wilson. It does not automatically stop at Taylor merely because Taylor was the voter’s second choice.
The Alaska Division of Elections explains the same principle in simpler language: a voter gets one vote counted in a race, and that vote counts for the voter’s highest-ranked candidate who has not been eliminated.
And that correction actually reinforces the larger point of my essay.
This system cannot be intelligently debated through slogans alone. We have to understand exactly what happens to each ballot, what makes a ballot inactive, what “continuing candidate” means, and what denominator produces the final majority.
Alaskans will have the opportunity on November 3, 2026, to vote on Ballot Measure 2, which proposes ending ranked-choice general elections and restoring political-party primaries. The Division of Elections confirms that the measure is on the 2026 ballot.
Whatever decision an Alaskan makes on that measure should begin with an accurate understanding of the system we presently have.
That is why I wrote the essay in the first place. Liberty Ed Martin Jr.
Ed, let’s try being as accurate as we can. Every Alaska election in our lifetimes has been won without a so-called “plurality.” As you know, almost half of registered voters don’t even vote; a fact that makes the pursuit of a so-called majority quite moot.
Thank you Ed for the time you have taken to share ALL the nuances of RCV.
What strikes me on the third Election round of RCV, is me and obviously many others STILL do not fully understand how RVC works. We who are engaged in this article are at least trying to understand RCV. Think of the thousands of Alaskans that only have cursory knowledge of RCV. This was the Democrats goal from the beginning, mass voter confusion. Add to that the fake candidates at all levels in the General Election that historically would have been eliminated in the Primary election and you have a Democrats dream.
You know what separates Alaska from the other 49 States, the other 49 States Do Not have this conversation on voting. In fact Alaska is a National laughing stock on how screwed up our voting process has become.
Vote Yes on Ballot 2 and return Alaska back to normal.
[…] Ed Martin: One person, one vote and what happens when a ranked ballot runs out […]
Voice of Opposition to Tyranny Wayne Coogan , I agree with you on one important point: we should be as accurate as possible. That is exactly why I keep coming back to definitions.
A plurality and a majority are not the same thing.
A plurality means a candidate received more votes than any other candidate, even though that candidate may have received less than half of all votes cast. A majority means more than half of the relevant vote total.
Low voter turnout does not change those definitions. If 100,000 eligible or registered voters stay home, they did not cast ballots in that election. The legal count is based upon ballots actually cast and accepted, not upon everyone who could have voted.
My concern is narrower.
Under Alaska’s present ranked-choice statute, the denominator can change as tabulation proceeds because some ballots become “inactive.” AS 15.15.350 says that if a candidate is highest-ranked on more than one-half of the active ballots, that candidate is elected. It also expressly defines circumstances in which a ballot becomes inactive and is no longer counted for any candidate.
So when I use the example of 100 ballots entering the count, 20 becoming inactive, and a candidate receiving 41 of the remaining 80, I am not claiming that all 100 citizens had to agree on one candidate.
I am saying something much more precise:
41 is a majority of 80 active ballots. It is not a majority of the original 100 ballots.
Those are two mathematically different statements.
That distinction matters because even the Alaska Division of Elections currently describes RCV by saying a candidate must receive a “majority (50% + 1) of total votes cast.” Yet the statute itself speaks specifically of more than one-half of the active ballots during ranked-choice tabulation.
That difference in wording is exactly why I believe citizens should understand the mechanics rather than simply hearing the word “majority.”
Joe, you raise another important point.
Look at what has happened in this very discussion. People who are genuinely trying to understand the system have disagreed about whether a ballot stops at an eliminated second choice, whether it moves to the next continuing candidate, when it becomes inactive, and what denominator produces the final majority.
The statute answers those questions, but they are not necessarily obvious from looking at the ballot.
For example, if a voter ranks A first, B second, and C third, and both A and B have been eliminated while C is still continuing, Alaska law provides that the vote can move to C—the “next-highest-ranked continuing candidate.” It does not automatically die at B.
The Division of Elections says the same thing in voter-oriented language: a voter gets one vote counted in the race, and it counts for the voter’s highest-ranked candidate who has not been eliminated.
That is why I am hesitant to reduce this discussion to Republicans, Democrats, conservatives, liberals, or campaign strategy.
Before arguing about who benefits from the system, I want Alaskans to be able to answer four simple factual questions:
What happens to my ballot?
When can it become inactive?
Which candidate is my vote actually counting for in each round?
And when government says somebody won a “majority,” majority of what?
Those questions belong to every voter regardless of party.
That is the purpose of my essay.