Alaska’s predominantly Native regions delivered huge margins against repealing the state’s new elections system, despite facing continued logistical challenges to voting.
In Alaska’s new system, all candidates regardless of party run in one primary that is open to all voters. Then, the top four candidates advance to the general election, at which stage voters can rank them. The state then tabulates the ballots and rankings until one winner emerges.
Better than "top two" primaries for sure. You do need choices in ranked choice but some ballots I've seen, almost a dozen candidates in a race, is a good way to encourage apathy or pretend it's a straight ticket vote.
Ranked choice voting was on the ballot here in Colorado this election cycle. It failed because both Republicans and Democrats opposed it. One of the most progressive people I know voted against it because her "progressive voting guide" from the Democratic Party said it was bad.
Weird how the two party system both don't want meaningful changes made.
For a good 1.5 weeks, it was lost. The last couple days it started to get saved. The day before they stopped counting votes, it was only ahead by 45 votes.
Partisan primaries tend to produce more extreme candidates. The hope is switching to a combined primary will result in moving candidates of more general appeal on to the general election.
I understand that.
My question was: why is a primary needed in the first place? It makes sense with first past the post, but with ranked choice voting and instant runnoff, I don't get why.
Does the US constitution require state to organise primaries?