The First Alaska Native in Congress Believes Ranked Choice Voting can Save America | RepresentUs

Mary Peltola was elected to Alaska’s Congressional seat through Ranked Choice Voting in 2022. She not only beat 22 other candidates to get the seat (including Sarah Palin and Santa Claus), but she also made history by becoming the first Alaska Native in Congress. She is uniquely popular in her state, gaining the support and vote of Alaskans on all sides of the aisle - something achieved because of Alaska’s voting system, RCV.
Learn more: represent.us/mp
RepresentUs bring together conservatives, progressives, and everyone in between to pass powerful state and local laws that fix our broken elections and stop political bribery. Our strategy is central to dismantling the root causes of inequities in our Senate, Congress, and beyond. We fight for democracy reform to end political corruption, extremism, and gridlock.
We’ve passed over 156 anti-corruption laws, from anti-gerrymandering and ranked choice voting to sweeping ethics and transparency laws.
#RepresentUs #Politics # # #
** Follow RepresentUs on Social Media **
Facebook: / representus​
Twitter: / representus​
Instagram: / representus​
TikTok: / representus

[@captsorghum]

One of the problems with rank choice voting is that it's based on the same vote-for-one scheme that it is intended to replace. If first-past-the-post is so bad at choosing a winner, why would anyone think it's any better at choosing a loser to eliminate? Every time the music stops and another candidate is tossed out, it's by the same vote-for-one tally method, with the same "vote-splitting" concerns as before. Proponents seem to think that by running multiple elimination rounds, the errors in each round will somehow cancel out. But the errors can just as easily accumulate, and likely will, as a candidate wrongly eliminated in earlier rounds can never be reinstated in subsequent rounds. There are better methods available than rank choice. I suggest approval voting, where voters are allowed to vote yes/no on each candidate, and are free to strategize however they see fit. Preferably in both the primaries and in the general election.

[@OnionZest]

Yeah but if a candidate is the second choice for both side than they can win. It adds a way for candidates that most people like but are not presented by a party.

[@captsorghum]

@@OnionZestActually if a candidate is second choice for both sides, they are likely to be eliminated in early rounds. A candidate needs to be ranked first by a sizeable faction to stay in the race.

[@gishjalmr5628]

Elimination of closed primaries will be used like it was in Maine recently. People with no intention of voting for the person they pick in the primary during the general election will use this as an attempt eliminate a candidate that is the most likely opponent to the preferred candidate. Tyranny of the majority watered down is all this is.

[@Justin_Beaver564]

Their's a difference between ranked choice voting and open primaries. The instant run-off component is the most important to me and so I'll take ranked choice with or without the open primaries. Instant run-off voting is the only way to give alternative candidates and third parties a chance. The two party system doesn't like competition.

[@jamesfox2857]

sounds like voter fraud

[@noahsylvester1754]

@@Justin_Beaver564 if the other parties had values that americans cared about, they wouldn't be brushed to the side so often

[@Justin_Beaver564]

@@noahsylvester1754 The main reason they're brushed to the side is because most voters are voting out of fear because they don't want the "other party" to win. Ranked Choice fixes that by getting rid of the spoiler effect since only one candidate can win with majority votes under an instant run-off. We have a dozens of different Protestant denominations so why can't we have dozens of different parties with a variety of political ideologies?

[@rh906]

@@noahsylvester1754 Green party, nah. Libertarian in name only Party, nah. Other shadow communist/socialist parties? They just infiltrated the Democrat party as the Democrats for Justice, like MAGA (and the Tea Party movement attempted) did with the GOP. So no real need for third parties when you can just hijack the main ones. We are not Europe and we don't have a parliamentary system.

[@olliefoxx7165]

I use to think ranked choice voting was the way until I saw how the establishment used it against a popular outsider. They made deals with the other party to shut out populist candidates. That way the establishment always wins. We need term limits, campaign finance reform, judicial overwatch, more severe penalties to combat corruption and measures to restrict lobbyist.

[@SoundofSilence492]

You forgot age limits. No candidate’s term should exceed their 66th birthday, the current retirement age. Why is this country being run by octogenarians? It’s absurd.

[@Justin_Beaver564]

You don't think having only two parties doesn't make it easier to manipulate? More choice is always a good thing. The current two party system manipulates voters thru fear.

[@captsorghum]

Combining all primaries into one big first-round makes the process easier to manipulate. If you have more candidates in a combined primary, then the margins between them tend to be closer. There is more susceptibility to vote splitting between similar candidates, and smaller margins between them. This makes it easier for outside powers to manipulate the outcome using various strategies, such as running shill candidates (to split the vote further), vote harvesting, collusion, and running positive ads promoting a weak opponent (in order to weaken a strong opponent). And those are only the legal strategies.

[@Justin_Beaver564]

The party itself could hold a caucus and choose to send only one candidate to the open primary if it wanted to. Remember primaries are tax payer funded elections, not inter-party funded elections. The entire point of ranked choice voting is to have more choices. The two parties have done everything they can to stay in power and prevent third party competition.

[@captsorghum]

@@Justin_Beaver564But ranked choice is not used in the primary, IIRC. It's only used for the four-way general election. We will probably see more party caucuses. But the whole point of primary elections was originally to allow voters to choose their nominees, and not just convention- or caucus-goers. Taxpayers fund party primary elections much like they fund public roads used by private vehicles. It doesn't mean we are obligated to pick up every hitchhiker we see. I agree about the two party system. But ranked choice voting is not likely to change anything, as it still follows Duverger's Law. Approval voting or a few others could open things up though. Approval voting being the most practical of those.

[@Justin_Beaver564]

@@captsorghum That's the main thing I would change about the Alaska system is that I would add ranked choice voting to the open primary as well. We really wouldn't even need a primary with ranked choice voting because theoretically their's no upper limit to how many candidates could run while still getting a majority of the vote. However I do like the idea of using the primary as a way to narrow down the candidates to a final four or five in order to make it easier for voters. In the last open primary for the Alaska congressional district you had almost 50 candidates running, which is a good thing in my opinion.

[@captsorghum]

@@Justin_Beaver564Yeah I can imagine trying to rank 50 candidates. That would be a nightmare. Even if you restrict the number of candidates a voter can rank, there are still 49 rounds of counting with the possibility of irregularities at every stage. The "still getting a majority of the vote" is kind of misleading, because "majority" in this case only means "majority after all but two are eliminated". Which is likely considerably less than 50% of the original ballots, as has been the case with San Francisco elections. If this qualifies as "majority", then why not conduct one additional elimination round, so that only one candidate remains? Instead of majority, you could claim a unanimous winner. Isn't unanimity better than a majority?

[@Justin_Beaver564]

@@captsorghum I don't see why ranking 50 candidates is an unreasonable ask. You can only rank the top 10 if you choose to do so. Unanimity and majority in theory should be one and the same.

[@WigFliper-xx3ol]

AWESOME, CONGRATULATIONS

[@phoenixjim0527]

She is right

[@jenns2074]

Yes 100%

[@StoicThrower]

Interesting

[@dkmenace1990]

Which is why Alaskans are going against RCV now lol

[@evasiuk]

I’m not a fool, so I don’t expect Petola to lose this time around. However, I really hope Dunleavy challenges her in 2026 and wins.

[@Justin_Beaver564]

I'm a registered Republican and Peltola was far superior to Palin in almost everyway. The only way she'd lose is if the Republicans put up someone even more compelling.

[@sethdonut]

Nice

[@TwilightMysts]

I believe that some sort of ranked choice voting will make a difference in the country, but the TYPE of ranked choice makes a big difference. This election specifically is doubtful since: * Of the initial round with three candidates, 60% voted Republican * I've heard claims (which may or may not be true, but so sound reasonable) that if Al Gross had not dropped out then a Republican would have won. Does it prove that the election in question, or the type of RCV used, is bad? No. But it does suggest that the situation needs more looking into.

[@emilyeast6924]

You are exactly right ~ I live here. If Al Gross had not dropped out (it was strategic) Peltola would not have won. Most of the state is totally Against ranked choice voting and is working to have it removed. Peltola only represents the democrats & progressives, even though Alaska (as usual, other than the big cities) votes republican.

[@maureenblack1035]

I did not know this, and I heartily agree that RCV might save American democracy, but I watch a lot of politics and I have not seen the blue party screaming at their opponents ever.

[@Justin_Beaver564]

We don't watch the same channels. Their's a lot of blind partisanship on both sides. The reason RCV is so important is that it stops the "fear vote". Most voters are voting to stop the person they hate, not the person they really want to vote for. Voting based on fear and angst leads to a lot of really bad politicians regardless of party or ideology.

[@ripvanwinkle2002]

LMAO you havent? then you havent looked this is the most idiotic thing ive ever seen in the comment section..

[@Justin_Beaver564]

It has to work in Alaska or the nation is doomed. The only change I'd make is adding instant run-off to the primary as well.

[@awfullufwa]

No, not interested. Heard about this kind of voting at least 10 years ago. It won't work for the USA. We're too large, both in geographical size and population, for it to ever be considered for something like a presidential election. You want to keep it local or state level? Fine. Go for it. I can move out of town or state. Buzz words like "inequity" also leaves a sour taste in my mouth. I believe in equality of opportunity, not the equality of outcome.

[@Justin_Beaver564]

Ranked choice voting is the only reform that can give third parties a chance. We need more local political parties that represent only one state or region of the nation. These two monolithic parties have done everything they can to prevent competition. It's why I refuse to vote for either one of them.

[@awfullufwa]

That's cool. The power of your vote could be lost with RCV, anyway, so no big loss. :D

[@rh906]

@@Justin_Beaver564 It's like the founding fathers had this scheme where the House represented the people and the States were appointed by the State legislative (which the people of the State elect) to actually represent the State in regards to Federal laws. Then a constitutional amendment came along and destroyed all that. We definitely need more local parties at the local and State level. But would never work at the Federal level since we don't have a parliamentary system.

[@Justin_Beaver564]

@@rh906 We could make it much closer to a parliamentary system by adding propotional representation and ranked choice voting. The Speaker of the House is in fact the US equivalent of a prime minster or chancellor.

[@putuharris]

nope 💩🤡

[@Justin_Beaver564]

It's important to look at long term possiblities instead of short term outcomes. Ranked Choice or Instant Run-off voting is the only reform that can give third parties a chance. The two major parties have done everything they can to prevent competition. Don't fall for the duopoly. Their's other choices and possibilities out there besides red and blue.

[@jamesfox2857]