By SUZANNE DOWNING
Aug. 2, 2026 – Four members of Alaska’s bipartisan governing class took to the pages of the Anchorage Daily News last week to tell voters how wonderfully ranked choice voting is working.
Sen. Cathy Giessel and Reps. Bryce Edgmon, Ky Holland and Zack Fields want Alaskans to vote no on Ballot Measure 2 in November and preserve the jungle primary and ranked-choice general election system.
Their argument boils down to this: Ranked choice voting produces broad-minded public servants who rise above politics, build coalitions and solve difficult problems.
Have they looked outside their bubble lately?
The Legislature has proposed budgets Alaska cannot sustain, repeatedly reached for taxes, failed to protect the Permanent Fund dividend, and allowed the state’s most important economic project in decades — the Alaska gasline — to become trapped in procedural games and partisan maneuvering.
If this is ranked choice voting’s model of enlightened governance, voters are entitled to ask what failure would look like.
The four lawmakers begin by declaring that legislators must serve all their constituents, pass balanced budgets, strengthen the economy and leave Alaska better prepared for the future. Those are admirable words, yet their record is something else.
The bipartisan majorities they celebrate have pushed spending beyond dependable revenues and weakened Alaska’s investment climate. Companies are getting cold feet about coming to Alaska.
They have failed to deliver a durable fiscal plan. And despite Southcentral Alaska’s approaching natural gas shortage, they cannot pass legislation needed to advance the gasline without attaching taxes, mandates and political ornaments that threaten the project itself.
“Disagreement does not have to lead to paralysis,” they write. Yet paralysis is precisely what Alaskans have watched them deliver.
The authors also attempt to wrap today’s legislative coalitions in Alaska history, arguing that cross-partisan governance is one of the state’s defining traditions.
But today’s arrangement is not the same as the coalitions of earlier decades. Historically, rural Democrats sometimes joined Republican-led organizations because doing so gave their districts influence, committee positions and a meaningful seat at the table. Today, Republican legislators elected by conservative districts cross over and simply hand organizational control to Democrats. Those Democrats then set the agenda and decide which bills live or die.
That is not “working across the aisle.” It is transferring power across the aisle.
Ranked choice voting makes that maneuver easier because it weakens the most direct mechanism voters once had for holding politicians accountable: the party primary.
Under the old system, Republican voters could decide whether someone seeking the Republican nomination actually represented Republican principles. Democratic voters could do the same with their candidates. The nominees then competed before the entire electorate.
The current jungle primary has turned party labels into little more than self-selected decorations. A candidate can campaign as a Republican, use the Republican brand to win votes, organize with Democrats in Juneau and then return home claiming to be bipartisan.
There is no meaningful Republican primary in which Republican voters can review that record.
That is not broader accountability. It is accountability avoidance.
Political parties are imperfect institutions, but they perform an important function. They tell voters something about a candidate’s principles, alliances and likely governing agenda. When party labels cease to mean anything, voters lose information and politicians gain camouflage.
No Alaska lawmaker illustrates that problem better than Sen. Cathy Giessel. Giessel is elected from a district that reliably supports Republican candidates. Yet in Juneau, she has repeatedly helps organize coalitions that put Democrats in control. Now she has co-authored a defense of ranked choice voting with Zack Fields, a former Alaska Democratic Party employee and one of the most openly partisan Democrats in the House. There is hardly a Democrat member more partisan than Fields.
That partnership tells voters far more about the true purpose of this election system than all the gauzy language about consensus and trust.
Giessel, Edgmon, Holland and Fields claim the open primary forces candidates to appeal to a “broader cross-section” of voters and protects Alaska from extremism.
Whatever that means … The word “extreme” has become a convenient label for voters who expect elected officials to keep their campaign promises.
Alaskans voted for Donald Trump in 2024 with about 54.5% of the vote. They did not choose him because he was an indistinct creature of the mushy middle. They chose a candidate who told voters what he believed, drew sharp distinctions and promised a clear direction. That is also democracy.
Voters are allowed to prefer candidates with defined principles. They are allowed to participate in political parties. They are allowed to expect a Republican to govern like a Republican and a Democrat to govern like a Democrat. Compromise may be necessary after an election, but voters should know what each side is bringing to the negotiation.
The legislators’ suggestion that repealing ranked choice voting would reward people for “playing politics” is especially insulting.
Politics is not inherently corrupt or shameful. It is the process through which citizens debate competing ideas, form alliances, persuade their neighbors and choose a direction for government. The answer to bad politics is more transparency and accountability—not an election system that blurs responsibility so thoroughly that no one can tell who is in charge.
And who, exactly, is playing politics here?
Is it the voter who wants a straightforward ballot and identifiable party nominees? Or is it the politician who runs under one label, governs with the opposing party and then praises an election system that protects that arrangement?
The authors say ranked choice voting has produced “durable solutions.” Name them.
Where is the durable fiscal plan?
Where is the sustainable budget?
Where is the long-term answer to Cook Inlet’s declining gas supply?
Where is following the law on the statutory formula for the Permanent Fund dividend?
Alaska’s bizarre election system isn’t some organic expression of our independent frontier character. It was engineered by political professionals and promoted with millions of dollars from Outside interests. It passed in 2020 by the narrowest of margins. When Alaskans voted on repeal in 2024, ranked choice voting survived by just 743 votes after being vastly outspent by Outside dollars.
Now voters will decide again.
Across the country, 19 states have prohibited ranked choice voting in some or all elections. Alaska remains one of only a tiny number using it broadly for statewide contests. Those states did not reject the system because their voters are incapable of understanding it. They rejected it because elections should be direct, transparent and accountable.
Ballot Measure 2 would end Alaska’s jungle primary and ranked-choice general election system and restore party-specific primaries and traditional plurality elections.
That would not end compromise or prevent lawmakers from working across party lines. It would not force legislators to hate one another or bring Washington-style warfare to Juneau. We send them there to negotiate with each other. That is their very job.
Restoring normal elections would simply restore a clear line of responsibility between candidates, political parties and voters.
Ranked choice voting has not rescued Alaska from dysfunction. It has weakened political parties, blurred ideological distinctions and given politicians more room to escape accountability for how they govern. It has also created far more rancor and division in Alaska politics. Look no farther than those who support ranked-choice voting — they are all Democrats to the core.
This November, Alaskans should vote YES on Ballot Measure 2.
One voter. One candidate. One vote.
Suzanne Downing is founder and editor of The Alaska Story and is a longtime Alaskan.
14 thoughts on “Suzanne Downing: Ranked-choice voting didn’t cure Alaska politics. It helped politicians escape accountability”
Just as,intended
With the Democrat Party now considered pure poison by the majority of Alaskans, look at all the Independents and non-party candidates running for office. But this disguise no longer works well.m either. Unless you vote for an identifiable conservative Republican, you will pay the price on the back end. Ask Bill Walker about that. As a party flip-flopper he paid the price. He’s now the most hated former governor, aka as a unity ticket pedophile enabler. Not electable ever again …….for anything.
Walker would do well in China. Zi didnt even have to train him to bow when He entered the stage. It looked like a knee jerk reaction when Willy went to China offering them a gas line.
And Walker’s wife came back from China with her suitcase strapped full of $$$. What was that about? A Hunter Biden operation, no doubt.
… “ Ranked-choice voting didn’t cure Alaska politics. It helped politicians escape accountability”
Maybe that was the ultimate plan all along, leveraging the stoopidity of the citizen // voter?!?!
Rank Choice Voting is on the ballot again!
This is the 3rd time on the ballot. While many against RCV say “3rd time is a charm” SO do many RCV supporters say “3rd time is a charm”.
It will be for some folks!
November will tell!
Let’s review the Alaska version of RCV with facts. Not for or against “just the facts”.
FACT: ALASKA RCV is only 1/2 RCV,
FACT: ALASKA RCV is 1/2 OPEN PRIMARY
FACT: The Primary is a one person one vote traditional election. 4 Candidates for the General election will be picked by voters.
FACT: Under RCV, Political party leadership does not decide who runs for office. They DO advise and recommend.
FACT: IN RCV Independent and unaffiliated Alaska voters will have a say in who the candidates for office are.
Note: Independents are over 50% of voters, Republicans at 24% and Democrats at 16%.
Open primary appears fair to all voters and the American/ Alaska way.
FACT: The RCV General is purely optional. You can vote for ONE person OR you can make second , third or fourth choices.
It is simple , you can do ONE person, one vote OR you can choose RCV format.
FACT: you can always select a 2nd choice candidate in the General. However. you should believe that person would be a good “X”, d if your preferred personal choice loses.
FACT: THE First candidate to reach 50% is the victor.
FACT: In the event of a tie, the election may be settled by coin toss:
The decision to be made by voters in November 2026: Do you want to keep the OPEN PRIMARY with RCV a personal option in the general?
Yes or No
SO, in a way it is a simple choice, Do you want an OPEN Primary? With an RCV General?
OR A return to the traditional Closed Primary, Party Candidate selection of candidates by the party itself?
With ONE person. One vote in the General?
Your vote is private, so vote your personal c’hoice.
It sounds simple. Because it is. The choice is yours. Whatever your position, If you care. Please Vote!
The future direction of Alaska voting is in your hands!
Something to think about: Some candidates running for office are publicly against RCV. IF they do not believe in the RCV format, how can they run for office in an RCV election?
WHY are they running? If they win because of RCV, will they admit their victory was because of RCV? OR step down in protest?
Just questions.
Please remember the old saying:
“IF you don’t vote, DON’T complain”.
Suzanne,
I might not agree with what you say, but I defend your right to say it. It is in this spirit that I respectfully disagree with your premise. I appreciate that the focus of your commentary is on the current system’s effect on the Legislature. I will defer to others to comment on that argument. My experience (40+years) is with the federal delegation, so I approach the issue solely from that perspective.
Let’s start with the photograph atop the commentary. The one in which you are clutching the statue of Ted Stevens. Ironic iconography, ain’t it?
I think we can agree that Ted Stevens is worthy of the exalted status Alaskans have bestowed upon him.
But we cannot ignore the fact that there were some who would have preferred that he be voted out of office because of his views on abortion.
Eliminating Alaska’s open primary in which every registered voter could vote for Ted was the path to accomplishing that goal. The test came in 1998 when David Cuddy challenged Ted in the closed primary.
Undoubtedly some of your readers would have preferred David Cuddy to Ted on social or fiscal issues, but that ignores the tremendous value he brought to the State. His career cut short by what we now call weaponization and lawfare, ironically at the hands of a Republican led Justice Department. Only to be vindicated by Eric Holder, President Obama’s Attorney General. Ain’t that ironic too?
Some time after Alaska abandoned it’s open primary the US Supreme Court determined that state open partisan primaries were unconstitutional. To the extent parties controlled the nominating process, the states could not require that those primaries be open to all voters. That led several states, to move to non-partisan primaries. Alaska was a late adopter with the Top 4 open primary, that you seek to repeal,
Back to the photograph at the top of your commentary, Ted never let anyone speak for Ted. But I find it hard to believe he would support a return to the closed primary. And with good reason.
Closed primaries empower ideological purity tests over competence. Personalities over performance. Accountability to factions within a party rather than Alaska’s interest. Precisely what Ted, as I remember him, despised. And what could have led to his forced retirement in 1998.
Granted that was then and this is now. May I suggest thst unspoken elephant in your room is the desire to bring Lisa’s service in the Senate to a close. I don’t believe Ted would have been good with that either.
Ted was a mentor to Lisa. A champion for her. And if he were still alive he would be proud of her impactful career. Her driven work ethic and singular focus on Alaska’s interests. Recall his comparison of Lisa’s smarts and style of governance to that of her father.
Granted Lisa’s viewpoint and style doesn’t please everyone in DC or the Alaska GOP as it exists today. Yet she enjoys wide respect from Alaskans and is regarded as a force for good by her Senate peers — including members of her caucus. Her seniority means that her star will continue to rise. Just as it did for Ted. And that is good for Alaska in my humble opinion.
So Nate, how do you know all this. I started working with Ted’s team in 1984. Was a Fairbanks alternate to the Alaska GOP convention in 1996 (the delegates were chosen by the Bible Baptist Church) and sat at Lisa’s side from 2003 -2019. I know her flaws and she knows mine. But we also know each others successes. Keeping the Top 4 primary enables Lisa to keep succeeding for Alaska in DC. Conversely ending it is like Cuddy beating Stevens.
So let’s review. First they came for Ted. Then they came for Don (Sean Parnell). Then they came for Lisa (Joe Miller and Kelly Tshibaka). All failed efforts. But they are coming for Lisa again in 2028 if she chooses to run. And changing the rules to persuade her to retire.
I never met Charlie Kirk but admired his willingness to defend his viewpoint. So, in Charlie’s words, “Prove Me Wrong”. Or just vote NO on the repeal.
The Stevens-Cuddy primary was 1996. Senior moment or writing an op-ed in bed way early in the morning Eastern time. You be the judge.
Will do!
“There is no meaningful Republican primary in which Republican voters can review that record.” right statement but that’s not the states fault! It’s the “parties fault plainly. Nothing stopped the Republicans at their convention in Aug. to hold a district wide vote primary for candidates ahead of election deadline reporting ! They cost themselves possibility the election of a Republican Governorship!
As far as FACT: The Primary is a one person one vote traditional election. 4 Candidates for the General election will be picked by voters.
FACT: Under RCV, Political party leadership does not decide who runs for office. They DO advise and recommend.
Herb’s statement” is right too, but only because the Republican leadership has no Captain steering the ship but into the rocks! The obvious reason for that is no unity within the PARTY! Until the party conducts it’s self like a private POLITICAL party it will suffer the uninformed electorate’s whim…..Liberty Ed, once a Republican now an informed independent 🙂 🙂
Sorry Correction the ” May Convention ” was what I meant ! 🙂 🙂
Mom got re-elected vis-a-vis RCV. Mom is an extremist, left-wing Democrat disguising her pitiful self as a a Republican. I still can’t figure out how Dad hangs in there. It certainly isn’t because of her cooking skills and any pleasantries around the home. He prefers her to be in Juneau. I moved to Canada .. ….long ago.
Yes the 2024 Repeal RCV ballot measure failed by 743 votes. The measure was ahead…until absentee ballots showed up in the final days after weeks of counting and “rearranging” RCV vote totals.
But more importantly were the large number of ballots that did NOT vote on the repeal measure either way. Why? Because voters were confused by the language.
REMEMBER: 2026 YES ON 2 gets rid of Rigged Choice Voting.
One question for all commenters. Why do the Dems like it?