One critique of ranked choice is that the winner in the end might depend on who initially comes in last. What if Ms. Palin had been eliminated first? Would most of her supporters have found Mr. Begich an acceptable second choice, at least compared with Ms. Peltola? If so, the second round might have catapulted him to a final GOP victory.
The state Division of Elections says it doesn’t have data on the second choices of the voters who picked Ms. Palin first. It isn’t sure whether such data will ever be collated and posted. The point is that ranked-choice voting encourages such strategic gamesmanship.
Imagine you’re an Alaska Democrat. The best scenario for your candidate, Ms. Peltola, might be a final showdown against Ms. Palin, meaning you want Mr. Begich to be eliminated. You might therefore conclude that the best use for your own ballot is to rank Ms. Palin first, ahead of the Democrat you actually want to win. Helping to knock out Mr. Begich early might improve Ms. Peltola’s overall odds.
At this point our head starts to hurt. Ranked-choice elections are sometimes referred to as instant-runoff voting. What was the problem with regular, old-fashioned runoffs?
Join the conversation as a VIP Member