As the election plays out in Alaska's unique U.S. House race, one thing has become glaringly apparent: ranked voting, while lauded for its potential to produce fairer outcomes, might just be the Achilles' heel for a popular Democrat US Rep Mary Peltola. This race showcases both the promise and the peril of the ranked-choice voting system, highlighting how a well-liked candidate could face an unexpectedly brutal defeat.
Ranked-choice voting (RCV) is a system where voters rank candidates in order of preference rather than simply choosing one. If no candidate receives a majority of first-choice votes, the candidate with the fewest votes is eliminated, and their votes are redistributed based on the second preferences of their voters. This process continues until one candidate secures a majority.
On paper, RCV is designed to produce more representative outcomes by ensuring that the winning candidate has broad support. It’s supposed to encourage more civil campaigns since candidates aim to be the second or third choice of their opponents' supporters. It also reduces the so-called "spoiler effect," where third-party candidates can split the vote and lead to a less popular candidate winning.
However, the Alaska House race is proving that the reality can be far more complicated—and, for Democrats, potentially disastrous. In this case, a popular Democratic candidate could find themselves ousted, not because they lacked support, but because of the very mechanism of ranked voting itself.
Here’s how it could play out: Imagine a scenario where a Democrat is the top choice for a significant portion of voters but not enough to secure an outright majority. Meanwhile, the Republican candidates and other third-party or independent contenders accumulate just enough votes to stay in the race through the initial rounds. As the rounds of elimination proceed, the votes from eliminated candidates are redistributed. If those voters’ second and third choices lean heavily toward the remaining Republican candidates, the Democrat’s initial lead could evaporate.
What’s particularly frustrating for Democrats is that ranked voting can sometimes lead to what’s known as the “center squeeze.” This happens when a candidate who is the most broadly acceptable (the Democrat, in this case) fails to pick up enough second or third-choice votes as more polarized candidates rally their bases and secure those critical rankings. The Democrat, who might be many voters' first choice, could end up eliminated before the final round, leaving a more polarizing candidate to take the seat.
The Alaska race underscores both the strengths and weaknesses of ranked voting. On the plus side, it encourages a more nuanced understanding of voter preferences and can reduce the chances of a fringe candidate winning with only a plurality of the vote. But it also exposes the system's vulnerability to strategic voting and the complexities of voter psychology.
Critics of RCV argue that it can be confusing for voters and may lead to unintended consequences, as seen in Alaska. The process of eliminating candidates and redistributing votes can create an outcome that feels counterintuitive—especially when a candidate who was the top choice in the first round is ultimately defeated.
Supporters, however, maintain that RCV offers a more democratic approach by requiring the eventual winner to appeal to a broader coalition of voters. They argue that while it may produce surprising outcomes in individual races, the overall effect is to create a more inclusive and representative democracy.
Yet, for Alaska Democrats, this theoretical upside may feel hollow if their popular candidate ends up losing due to the very system designed to promote fairness. The Alaska House race serves as a cautionary tale: ranked voting is a powerful tool, but like any tool, it can have unintended consequences. In the high-stakes world of electoral politics, those consequences can mean the difference between victory and defeat.
As the results come in, Alaskans—and the nation—will be watching closely to see whether ranked-choice voting delivers on its promises or whether it inadvertently contributes to the downfall of a candidate who, under a different system, might have won handily.
Senate Ballot Box Scores
Comments