On December 10, the Alaska Division of Elections confirmed, following a vote recount, that the effort to repeal Final Four Voting (F4V) failed by a mere 743 votes, out of 341,000 cast. The result secures Alaska’s position as a rare victory for electoral reformers this year, in contrast with setbacks elsewhere: five states rejected ranked-choice voting (RCV) ballot measures, while Missouri approved a constitutional amendment banning it. For the national electoral-reform movement, these state-level difficulties suggest that it might be better to shift focus to local elections.
Though some news reports suggested that Alaskans voted to retain RCV, key distinctions exist between RCV and Alaska’s voting system. For state and federal elections, Alaska uses a variant of Final Five Voting (FFV), championed by the Institute for Political Innovation. Alaska’s F4V system combines three key elements: fully open primaries allowing all qualifying candidates and registered voters to participate, regardless of party; advancing the top four vote-getters to the general election; and using RCV in the general election to ensure a winner with a majority of last-round votes. This setup resembles California’s and Washington’s “top-two” primary systems, except that four candidates, not two, advance to the general election.
These systems employ RCV because, in winner-take-all general elections with more than two candidates, voters may cast strategic votes rather than choosing their true preference, fearing that they might give an objectionable candidate the upper hand. RCV mitigates this “spoiler effect” by getting rid of last-place candidates and reallocating votes based on voters’ next preferences.
Research on Alaska’s F4V, adopted in 2020, shows that it rewards candidates with broad voter appeal. The system came under fire, however, after the 2022 special election for the state’s sole House seat. Though Republicans secured a 60-percent majority of the vote among two candidates, after Republican Nick Begich was eliminated, most of his votes shifted to Democrat Mary Peltola, resulting in her victory over former governor Sarah Palin. This outcome fueled the GOP’s charge to repeal Alaska’s system in this year’s ballot measure. Yet, in this year’s House race—again using F4V—Begich defeated Peltola soundly, perhaps assuaging concerns that the system favors Democrats. F4V and FFV enable voters to express more nuanced preferences, which can sometimes result in unexpected outcomes, leading to accusations of unfairness and bias from the losing side.
Proponents of RCV ballot measures spent about $66 million this year—an astonishing 20 times more than opponents’ $3.3 million. In Alaska alone, the campaign to preserve F4V raised more than $12 million as of October, a hundred times the amount raised by the repeal effort. That such massive spending failed to achieve more state-level wins suggests that reformers’ efforts might be better spent at the local level. After all, Washington, D.C., voters approved a measure on Election Day to introduce RCV and allow unaffiliated voters to participate in the party primary of their choice.
Jurisdictions that have adopted RCV as a standalone reform, though, haven’t seen dramatically enhanced political competition. In a rigorous review of RCV’s effects, New America’s Lee Drutman and Maresa Strano noted that “most of the studies in this series found RCV to be either a comparable or modestly better alternative” to plurality voting. Given the substantial resources necessary to adopt RCV, such meager results make it an unattractive reform option on its own.
In fact, RCV’s inability to improve New York City’s lack of inter-party political competition and low turnout in local elections has led some groups to call for further reforms. Last Saturday, the New York Daily News editorial board rightly decried the city’s odd-year local elections and the state’s fully closed primaries as the structural drivers of its electoral malaise. The board has repeatedly called for adopting FFV (though, curiously, its recent editorial wishes to retain a ranked-choice primary, which FFV does not). During this summer’s charter-revision commission, several good-government groups, some city councilmembers, and individual New Yorkers (myself included) testified in favor of electoral-system changes, including primary reforms. The commission declined to take up any electoral-reform proposal.
Why, then, should reformers focus on localities? They have several advantages over states. The sheer number of cities lets reformers target areas with the most favorable prospects rather than focusing on broader statewide electorates. A reform campaign in a city generally requires fewer resources than a state campaign. Heterodox and politically innovative local parties and mayoral candidates could facilitate new policy platforms uniquely tailored to their city’s electorate and needs.
In New York, F4V or FFV could be implemented for three prominent citywide offices: mayor, comptroller, and public advocate. The mayoral race, in particular, might benefit from increased political competition, prompting candidates to appeal to all registered voters rather than just party members. This reform could also diminish the influence of special interest groups like labor unions and progressive nonprofits. Combining this approach with even-year local elections would further challenge these groups’ ability to secure decisive electoral sway. Policymakers should also consider how to gain political party support to prevent potential repeal efforts like the Republican-led ballot measure in Alaska.
This year’s election outcomes demonstrate that, even with significant financial backing, electoral reformers face considerable challenges persuading statewide voters to adopt changes. Municipal elections might provide more promising terrain.
Photo by Spencer Platt/Getty Images
Seo hed:
URL Keywords: