The losers in last year’s elections in Alaska say change is bad. Of course they do. Political losers seldom blame themselves when voters fill in the oval next to someone else’s name. But whether last year’s change suits their own personal views and political agenda should not overrule Alaska’s switch to ranked-choice voting.
The change worked, some moderate candidates won election last year, and the world did not end. In fact, the state probably is better for it. Moderation is good for a political world moving too far away from a productive middle.
Yet, opponents of the new voting system are hysterical in their opposition.
“If we don’t act now, the entire U.S. election system is about to change,” unsuccessful candidate to represent Alaska in the U.S. Senate Kelly Tshibaka said on a podcast earlier this month. She was talking with host Steve Bannon, a former adviser to then-President Donald Trump. Bannon, however, could see a change in his own future: His prison time is on hold while he appeals his conviction on two counts of criminal contempt of Congress.
“We are in the fight of our lives. We are in a fight for our republic,” said Michael Alfaro, who spoke at an organizing rally last Thursday in Anchorage to start collecting petition signatures to put the question of overturning ranked-choice voting on the 2024 statewide ballot.
Alfaro is not a newcomer to controversial politics in Alaska: He launched a political action committee to support Tshibaka and former Gov. Sarah Palin in last November’s election. And just as Tshibaka lost, so did Palin.
And if there was any doubt that the opponents of ranked-choice voting see it as the enemy of electing conservatives like Palin and Tshibaka, Art Mathias, one of the initiative organizers, warned the crowd at last Thursday’s rally that if ranked-choice voting isn’t reversed, “we will never elect another conservative and we will only have outside corporations coming in and buying our candidates and buying our elections.”
While I agree with Mathias that too much money is poured into political campaigns, I don’t see where electing conservatives will solve that problem. Adopting strict campaign finance limits is the answer — something a lot of conservatives oppose.
Mathias, a Christian minister, was fairly open about why he wants more conservatives in government, expressing support for vigilantes who want to dictate what other people can read at public libraries. He even went so far as to accuse corporations of “redefining our biology.” He added, “They keep preaching that men can get pregnant.”
That’s a dishonest argument that adds nothing to the voting debate, other than seeking to inflame voters.
The other initiative organizer at Thursday’s event, Phillip Izon, said ranked-choice voting is confusing and that’s why fewer people voted last year. I’d suggest people weren’t confused, they simply did not like the candidates and saw little point in voting. My advice to Izon is to put up better candidates than Palin and see if voters respond.
“I don’t want anyone in this room to think that we’re a partisan thing. We’re not,” Izon told the crowd.
OK, it’s not partisan, if you say so, but it is destructive and backward. Changing how people can select their preferred candidates is good if it means the extreme ones lose.
The ballot initiative needs signatures from more than 26,000 registered voters; they gathered almost 300 at last week’s event. I’ll hope they don’t collect the other 99%.
Reader Comments(0)