The Alaska Libertarian Party is calling on voters to reject a ballot initiative that would dismantle the state’s current election system, including its use of ranked-choice voting. The measure would also roll back certain campaign finance disclosure laws.
In a resolution first approved by its executive board in February and published earlier this month, the party formally came out in opposition to Initiative 24ESEG and called on voters to reject the measure on the general election ballot this November.
The initiative was certified last December and seeks to reverse the system adopted by voters in 2020. That system replaced party-run primaries with a single nonpartisan primary in which all candidates appear on one ballot. The top four then advance to the general election, where the winner is determined through ranked-choice voting rather than a simple plurality.
If approved, the initiative would eliminate both the top-four primary and ranked-choice general election system, restoring closed partisan primaries and single-choice general elections. It would also repeal portions of the state’s campaign finance disclosure laws adopted alongside the 2020 system, including requirements to identify the sources of political donations and election-related spending over $2,000.
In its resolution, the party defended ranked-choice voting on the grounds that it “expands voter choice, reduces structural barriers to entry for non-major party candidates, and incentivizes broader coalition-building.” It also pointed to the system’s ability to blunt the spoiler effect by allowing voters to rank candidates instead of being forced into a single choice.
At the same time, the party explicitly acknowledged a point of tension within libertarian thought regarding the use of publicly funded primaries. While it said it generally favors having political parties oversee and fund their own candidate selection processes, it argued that those concerns still do not justify repealing the current system in its entirety.
The resolution also separates out the initiative’s campaign finance provisions, warning that rolling back those disclosure requirements raises its own policy questions. The party said those proposed changes should instead be evaluated on their own merits rather than bundled into a broader overhaul of the state’s election system.
J.M., it’s not nonpartisan. Those party labels are still printed on the ballot. And access to the jungle primary ballot in a system that all but eliminates the ability of alternative candidates to get on the general election ballot when the largest number of voters participate and when someone is actually elected is largely meaningless.
A nonpartisan, top 4 primary, with RCV, like Alaska has, helps all 3rd parties with ballot access.
Not sure why so many Libertarians don’t understand this.
Good for LPAK to fight for this.
I disagree that RCV helped the LP presidential ticket in 2024. Trump received a higher percentage in 2024 compared to 2016 or 2020, and Oliver-ter Maat received the lowest percentage for the LP since 2008 and finished lower than third for the first time since ’08.
Alaska used RCV for president in November 2024, and that probably helped the Oliver-ter Maat ticket poll more votes than it would have otherwise. Oliver’s 4th best percentage in 2024 was Alaska. Only North Dakota, Wyoming and Utah were better.
There’s a weird fascination with RCV in the LP.
RCV really doesn’t help Libertarians because it’s easily gamed by the duopoly simply running more candidates, flooding the ballot, especially in a jungle primary, where it’s primarily used. In the general , when each party only has one candidate, it can be useful, but the duopoly knows that which is why they structure things around RCV the way they do with jungle primaries, Top Two/Four, and other problems.
It’s interesting that there is not more willingness to support repeal considering the Top Four feature of the Alaska system. Since it’s implementation the only Libertarian to get on a statewide ballot has been Chris Bye for US House in 2022, which only occurred because the third place Republican withdrew after the primary. Any Top X system will restrict the ability of alternative party candidates to make it to the general election ballot in high profile races. I’m not sure why the Alaska LP isn’t more concerned about being hampered in this manner.