R Street Report: Evaluating the Effects of the Top-Four System in Alaska
By Ryan Williamson, Resident Fellow, Governance
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
In 2020, Alaska modified its electoral process to a top-four ranked choice voting system and away from more traditional partisan primaries, making Alaska the first state to do so for state executive and legislative races, as well as federal congressional seats. The 2022 cycle was the first time an alternative system was employed in the state, first with a special election to fill the vacancy caused by the death of Rep. Don Young, and then for all other legislative and statewide elections in November. A review of initial evidence found that races in the state became more civil and competitive overall, and, despite it being a major change in process, the top-four approach caused little disruption in the composition of government. Elected officials and incumbents continued to fare well under the new format compared with their performance in recent traditional elections.
Excerpts:
The Top-Four Approach Rewarded Candidates with Broad Appeal:
Though Alaska votes reliably Republican in presidential elections, its partisan and ideological composition is unique in a variety of ways, and it tends to favor politically moderate candidates who are willing to challenge national party platforms. For example, despite the Republican lean of the state, 63 percent of Alaskans believe abortion should be legal in all or most cases. In addition, Alaska’s Permanent Fund Dividend, a redistributive program akin to universal basic income, represents one of the most important issues to voters of all stripes and has been the focal point of many debates among Alaska’s politicians. Finally, Alaska was the third state, behind Colorado and Washington, to legalize marijuana for recreational purposes, even as other Republican and Democratic states continued to oppose legalization.
The unique political composition of Alaska is perhaps best reflected in the tenure of Lisa Murkowski, who has made a name for herself as one of the most moderate members of the U.S. Senate, voting with her party only about 56 percent of the time. In recent years, Murkowski deviated from her party by voting to convict Trump on his impeachment charges, voting against the 2017 repeal of Obamacare and being the only Republican to vote against confirming Brett Kavanaugh for a seat on the Supreme Court. Her stances have earned scorn from fellow Republicans as far back as 2010 when she failed to win the Republican primary. Nevertheless, she famously won re-election with 39 percent of the vote as a write-in candidate.
Likewise, Don Young, who served Alaska in the U.S. House of Representatives for nearly half a century, routinely faced regular challenges for his seat. In his last four bids for reelection, Young survived multiple competitive elections while never receiving more than 54.4 percent of the vote. While serving in the House, he was a reliable Republican vote but took a more moderate position than most others in the chamber, especially with respect to federal spending. Like Murkowski, Young made a name for himself prioritizing the preferences of Alaskans over those of his party.
Taking these factors into consideration, the victory of Democrat Mary Peltola over Republicans Sarah Palin and Nick Begich should not be surprising. Peltola ran a highly localized, Alaska-centric campaign tied to issues like fishing, whereas her main challenger, Sarah Palin, appealed to voters through more populist, culture-war-centric issues.11 Although Peltola reached across the aisle and asked to be ranked second among voters who didn’t mark her as their first choice, Palin ran against ranked-choice voting, calling it “rigged.” The two Republicans spent more time attacking each other than they did making the case against Peltola. This is perhaps one of the reasons why Peltola’s vote share increased between the special and general election.
Both Parties Fared Well with the Top-Four System
Contrary to some arguments from skeptics of reform, Alaskan Republicans generally fared well with the top-four approach. While some opponents to the new system have described it as a “scam to rig elections” in favor of Democrats and others have suggested that it makes it difficult for parties to support their candidates, neither of these arguments are valid. The evidence shows that Republicans saw no change in their ability to translate their support into seats in the state legislature.
This change in competition without a meaningful change in partisanship is not a coincidence. A main advantage of having multiple candidates from the same party competing for office, as is possible under a top-four system, is that it provides a viable offramp for supporters who want to see their party win but who may not like the candidate who won a partisan primary. It also gives a choice to members of the opposing party, whose candidates may not be viable in a given district but who still would like a meaningful say in who represents them. In other types of elections, if an unfavorable candidate advances out of the primary, a voter may feel stuck choosing between the lesser of two evils—a member of their own party with whom they have substantial disagreements or a member of the opposing party.
