Alaska Voters Weigh Repeal of Ranked Choice Amid Senate Race Controversy

Alaska voters will decide on November 3 whether to keep or discard the state's nonpartisan primary and ranked choice voting system. The measure, labeled Yes on 2, faces renewed scrutiny after a dispute in the U.S. Senate race involving two candidates named Dan Sullivan.

Critics argue the current format creates loopholes that allow well-funded groups to introduce spoiler candidates. Supporters counter that ranked choice voting actually reduces the damage caused by those candidates. Both sides point to recent national trends to support their positions.

Craig Richards, a former Alaska Attorney General and legal adviser for the repeal campaign, believes the system adopted in 2020 is prone to manipulation. He argues that the traditional American system offered a built-in check. In that older model, each political party advanced one candidate from a primary. Richards said parties used their reserved ballot spots to support quality candidates and discourage less serious entrants.

Under the current rules, candidates can select a party label without formal party support. Richards says parties can no longer control who appears on the ballot. This shift, he claims, allows strategic players to enter races more easily.

John-Henry Heckendorn, a consultant for the No on 2 campaign, disputes the idea that Alaska is uniquely vulnerable. He notes that spoiler candidates are plaguing races in states with traditional systems. An Axios report this week stated that super PACs have spent millions to promote more than 40 potential spoilers in congressional races nationwide. These candidates often run as Greens, Libertarians, or independents.

Heckendorn argues that Alaska has a specific remedy that other states lack. In ranked choice voting, a voter can choose a minor candidate as their first choice. If that candidate finishes last, the ballot transfers to the voter's second choice. He believes this provision blunts the impact of spoilers, a factor he says national media often overlook.

Greg Powers, the campaign manager for Yes on 2, focuses on a specific statistical weakness. He says super PACs know that some voters will select a spoiler candidate and fail to rank any other options. By promoting minor candidates, these groups hope to split the vote against their preferred major party candidate. Powers says campaigns exploit this gap to gain an edge in close elections.

Scott Kendall, the attorney who drafted the 2020 ballot measure, argues that recruiting challengers to split votes is an old strategy. He points to the 2008 U.S. Senate race that unseated Republican Senator Ted Stevens. Stevens lost to Democrat Mark Begich by fewer than 4,000 votes. A challenger from the right, Bob Bird, ran as an Alaska Independence Party candidate and took about 13,000 votes.

Kendall suggests that if Bird voters had been able to rank their choices, many would have ranked Stevens. He believes Stevens would have kept his seat in that scenario. The debate now centers on whether this new system fixes those historical gaps or creates new ones.