OPINION: Confusion, collusion, and the ranked choice illusion

Published 7:30 am Thursday, October 22, 2026

For years, voters have been fed the myth that ranked choice voting (RCV) is the election reform that this country needs. According to the sponsor’s own campaign materials, the RCV enabling initiative that passed in Alaska in 2020 mandating a jungle primary and increased disclosures would “eliminate dark money” and “give more choice, more voice, and more power” to voters.

It has failed to deliver on those assurances.

If RCV lived up to its boosters’ promises, it would have swept the nation, but that isn’t the case.

In the last three years, 14 states have statutorily prohibited RCV in their elections, bringing to 19 the number of RCV bans nationwide. Only three states, Alaska, Maine, and Hawaii have implemented RCV in statewide elections. Both Alaska and Hawaii are among a dozen additional states that are now considering a repeal or ban of RCV.

The debate about Alaska’s electoral system rages on, but it’s mostly sustained by misinformation. Contrary to its stated goal of more choice and transparency, the system has lent itself to candidates “gaming” the system and dark money becoming even more instrumental in determining the outcome.

Look at what happened in Alaska’s gubernatorial race this year.

Alaskan primary voters advanced two Democrats to the November governor’s ballot. Those voters didn’t choose to reduce that number to one. Second-place finisher Tom Begich made that decision after the primary, withdrawing and endorsing Jonathan Kreiss-Tomkins. His departure elevated fifth-place Republican Treg Taylor, transforming a two-Democrat, two-Republican field into one Democrat facing three Republicans.

This Democrat post-election shenanigan was sheer manipulation and collusion without a thought given to voters whose votes were cast aside like so much useless chaff.

RCV supporters criticize traditional primaries for narrowing voters’ choices. But a traditional primary at least gives participating voters a direct role in choosing their party’s standard-bearer. When candidates advance through Alaska’s jungle primary and then withdraw to consolidate support, that narrowing happens via campaign decisions and party bosses, not through the rankings voters were promised they could express in November.

This is in contrast to the Republican field that hasn’t consolidated, and, in giving their voters “more choice,” will thereby greatly decrease their chance of winning.

Some will say that it doesn’t matter because if Republicans rank all three candidates then votes will not be lost in the process. But historically, that hasn’t been the case. For various reasons, voters will choose not to rank all the candidates and eventually their vote may be eliminated preventing it from being transferred to a higher vote-getter.

This can lead (and has in the past) to winners being elected by less than a majority of all voters. How does this give voters “more voice?”

The Democrats know this, which is why persuasion from their leading candidate (and likely party insiders) pressured a duly-qualified nominee out of the race so only one candidate remained.

The strategy in formulating a final ballot and calculating how voters will rank candidates is all part of the game now. And RCV lends itself to this collusion and manipulation.

Dark-money groups are now spending huge sums promoting fringe candidates of the opposite party, hoping to draw votes away from their leading opponent. Sham candidate “Decoy Dan” and Democrat candidates posing as Republicans or Independents are examples of attempts to confuse voters and weaken opposition support.

One recent political mailer from a dark-money source sent to conservative voters exhorted them to only “vote once,” discouraging them from ranking candidates and thereby hoping to dilute Republican votes. Sure, it’s legal, but is it ethical when it undercuts the very system Democrats say gives us more choice?

None of this would have been possible or as influential under Alaska’s previous one-person, one-vote system that has served us and all Americans well for hundreds of years.

The ultimate irony of this is that the original effort to pass RCV and to defeat its repeal has been supported by unlimited funds from out-of-state super PACs that hide behind arcane disclosure rules, not all that much different than the “dark money” interests RCV proponents promised to eliminate but haven’t.

Our current election system is broken. It’s time to repeal it.

Vote Yes on Ballot Measure 2.

Win Gruening retired as the senior vice-president in charge of business banking for Key Bank in 2012. He was born and raised in Juneau and graduated from the U.S. Air Force Academy in 1970. He is active in community affairs as a 30-plus-year member of Juneau Downtown Rotary Club and has been involved in various local and statewide organizations.