Alaska's Ranked-Choice Voting Is Manipulable and Disenfranchising, So Congress Should Act Against It
Source: https://www.facebook.com/americanspectator/. "Alaska’s Ranked-Choice Voting Experiment Takes a Sinister Turn | The American Spectator | USA News and Politics." November 2, 2026. spectator.org
The Gist
The author says Alaska's ranked-choice voting lets a Democrat win in a Republican state and can be gamed, as shown by a reported plan to run a candidate with a confusingly similar name to the Republican senator. He argues the system throws out some ballots and confuses voters, so it should be repealed, and he says Congress may need to step in because states likely won't.
Conclusion
Ranked-choice voting is a flawed, manipulable system that undermines election integrity and disenfranchises voters; it should be repealed, and since states are unlikely to do so, Congress should override it by legislation.
Premises
- Alaska is a heavily Republican-leaning state (Democrats are about 12% of the electorate), yet RCV helped elect Democrat Mary Peltola in 2022 and may help her win the Senate seat in 2026.
- RCV disenfranchises voters whose ballots are 'exhausted' (those who ranked only one candidate who is eliminated), because their ballots do not count in the final tally.
- RCV was adopted in Alaska in 2020 through a deceptive, lengthy ballot initiative funded by outside left-leaning groups, so voters did not know what they were approving.
- The 'top four' primary plus RCV lets obscure, marginal candidates onto the general ballot, enabling politicians to 'stack' the ballot with spoilers to their advantage.
- According to a New York Times report, the Peltola campaign and the DSCC recruited a candidate, Daniel J. Sullivan, whose name resembles that of incumbent Sen. Dan Sullivan, to confuse voters. This shows RCV is easily gamed.
- RCV is spreading (Alaska, Maine, cities and counties in 2026), which will make elections less transparent, more complicated and protracted, and more open to fraud.
- The Constitution's Elections Clause (Art. I, Sec. 4) lets Congress alter state regulations for congressional elections, so a federal remedy is legally available.
Assumptions
- Peltola's 2022 win and possible 2026 win are attributable to RCV rather than to candidate appeal, turnout, or other factors.
- Exhausted ballots from voluntarily limited rankings count as 'disenfranchisement' rather than a voter's own choice.
- Spoiler or confusing-name candidate tactics are uniquely or especially enabled by RCV and are not equally possible under other systems.
- The NYT-reported allegations, based partly on a fired former aide, are accurate despite denials from the campaign and the DSCC.
- Election results that diverge from a state's partisan lean are evidence of illegitimacy or manipulation.
- Congressional intervention is desirable and politically feasible, and a single-party-aligned remedy is appropriate despite federalism concerns.
- Alternatives such as runoffs are clearer and less manipulable than RCV.