“In accordance with Alaska law, all general elections will be conducted by Ranked Choice Voting (RCV). RCV allows voters to rank candidates in order of preference. Only the top four candidates who received the greatest number of votes for any office in the primary will appear on the general election ballot. There will still be a space for write-in candidates except for Presidential races. For a candidate to win, they must receive a majority (50% + 1) of total votes cast. If no candidate receives a majority of 1st choice votes in the 1st round of counting, more rounds of counting continue until a candidate reaches a majority.”
We’re working on it here in Colorado, but the two entrenched parties are fighting us tooth and nail. and don’t forget, Alaska has a measure on the ballot to repeal that this election.
Were working on it in Oregon too, ballot measure in November. Our democrats are partially on board with it but all the conservative counties are fighting it for obvious reasons. I’m optimistic though. Oregon has a good track record on average of being forward looking.
It could well be a consequence of how recently it became a state. There’s a similar situation in the UK where elections for the entire country use FPTP but elections for the devolved parliaments (Northern Ireland in 1973, Scotland in 1999, and Wales also in 1999) use other better options . Maybe seeing FPTP in action for a long time just turns you against it.
Yup, at least outside Alaska we are…
Who would have thought ALASKA would have the most progressive statewide voting system?
Can we get that going elsewhere?
https://www.elections.alaska.gov/election-information/#RankedChoice
“In accordance with Alaska law, all general elections will be conducted by Ranked Choice Voting (RCV). RCV allows voters to rank candidates in order of preference. Only the top four candidates who received the greatest number of votes for any office in the primary will appear on the general election ballot. There will still be a space for write-in candidates except for Presidential races. For a candidate to win, they must receive a majority (50% + 1) of total votes cast. If no candidate receives a majority of 1st choice votes in the 1st round of counting, more rounds of counting continue until a candidate reaches a majority.”
We’re working on it here in Colorado, but the two entrenched parties are fighting us tooth and nail. and don’t forget, Alaska has a measure on the ballot to repeal that this election.
Were working on it in Oregon too, ballot measure in November. Our democrats are partially on board with it but all the conservative counties are fighting it for obvious reasons. I’m optimistic though. Oregon has a good track record on average of being forward looking.
This is where primaries are vitally important. They provide accountability with low risk to the overall direction of governance.
It could well be a consequence of how recently it became a state. There’s a similar situation in the UK where elections for the entire country use FPTP but elections for the devolved parliaments (Northern Ireland in 1973, Scotland in 1999, and Wales also in 1999) use other better options . Maybe seeing FPTP in action for a long time just turns you against it.
NZ’s Parliament was regularly described as “more Westminster than Westminster” until we moved to MMP in the 90s.
It has its bugs but it’s far better than FPP and many alternatives.