WSJ Criticism of Alaska’s Rank Choice Voting is Itself a Farce

The Wall Street Journal's Editorial Board recently published a misleading and poorly structured critique of Alaska's Ranked Choice Voting system. The argument deserves a direct response, because the flaws in it reveal more about the critics than about the system they are attacking.

The Background

In 2020, Alaskan voters approved Measure 2, which replaced party primaries with ranked-choice voting. In August 2022, using this system, Alaskans selected Mary Peltola, a centrist Democrat, to the state's sole Congressional seat.

This year, Representative Peltola was up for re-election. In the August 2024 open primaries, Peltola led the field with 50.9 per cent of the vote, followed by three Republicans: Nick Begich (26.6%), Lt. Gov. Nancy Dahlstrom (19.9%), and Matthew Salisbury (0.6%). Facing the possibility of splitting the conservative vote, an outcome known as the "spoiler effect," the Republican base pressured Dahlstrom and Salisbury to drop out.

Why the Spoiler Argument Does Not Hold

The spoiler effect is irrelevant under ranked-choice voting. Instead of splitting votes, the system allows for rounds of elimination until a candidate secures more than 50 per cent. The GOP had an opportunity here to broaden its appeal by attracting moderate, swing voters. It chose not to take it.

When Dahlstrom and Salisbury withdrew, the fifth and sixth-place candidates, Mr. Howe and Mr. Hafner, considered fringe candidates, moved into the final four positions for the November ballot. The WSJ Editorial Board argues that ranked-choice voting allowed these fringe candidates to advance, and uses this as a reason to repeal the system.

What Actually Went Wrong

The real issue is that the GOP failed to capitalise on the inclusive nature of ranked-choice voting, which encourages candidates to appeal to a broader electorate beyond their party's base. This is evident from the 2022 election, when Alaskan voters sent two moderates to Washington: Peltola to the House and Senator Lisa Murkowski to the Senate.

Ranked-choice voting did not fail Alaska. The Republican Party's narrow strategic thinking failed itself.

The Bigger Picture

This is not an isolated critique. It is part of a broader pattern of resistance to any electoral reform that threatens the two-party duopoly, regardless of whether that reform demonstrably serves voters better. The Final Five primary system builds on exactly this kind of reform, and the same institutional resistance will apply.

Understanding why ranked-choice voting works, and why the arguments against it tend to focus on party strategy rather than voter outcomes, is essential reading for anyone following how electoral rules shape who gets to vote and whose votes actually count.

Source: WSJ: A Ranked-Choice Voting Farce in Alaska