RCV. The Spectrum of Compromise

Ranked Choice Voting and the Slide Toward a Uni-Party

Politics is supposed to be about choices. Clear ones. Yet Ranked Choice Voting, sold as a modern reform to make elections fairer, is nothing more than a scheme that blurs those choices and pushes us toward a centrist sameness Alaskans never asked for. It is compromise masquerading as democracy, and like moral relativism, it trades conviction for shades of “good enough.”

The pitch for RCV is simple: let voters rank candidates, then shuffle the ballots with algorithms until the computer cobbles together a majority. Supporters claim this ensures broad appeal. What it really does is water down convictions and build artificial majorities that have nothing to do with true representation. Instead of sharpening debate and forcing candidates to stand on principle, RCV pressures them to soften, to sand down the edges, to be all things to all people. That isn’t leadership. That isn’t true representation. That’s pandering.

We’ve already seen the results. Under “first-past-the-post” elections, candidates could rally a base, draw contrasts, and win by conviction. Under RCV, the goal shifts from winning first-choice votes to collecting second and third choices. Conservatives are pushed to the middle, progressives to the middle, until all that’s left is a centrist consensus that satisfies no one. Over time, politics and government flatten into a uni-party landscape where candidates are indistinguishable, and bold ideas die on the vine. Australia’s century of RCV proves the point: two dominant parties trading power but no real change. The early signs here in America are no different. Alaskans already know this firsthand. Ballot Measure 2 was sold with Outside money as a way to “fix” elections, but it has only sown confusion, distrust, and a sense that the system is rigged. If not for the gaslighting and slick advertising of the “dark money” campaign, Ballot Measure 2 would already be in the scrapheap where it belongs.

This drift to the center is not just mechanical; it is philosophical. RCV turns elections into an exercise in moral relativism. A single vote under our old system was a clear choice: yes or no, support or reject, pro-life or not, pro-2A or not. Under RCV, voters are told to say, “This candidate is my first choice, but if that doesn’t work, this other one, though they don’t share my beliefs, isn’t so bad.” Post-Dobbs, imagine a pro-life conservative ranking a “moderate” who waffles on states’ rights as second; ‘good enough’ …until it’s not. Rationalizing that vote as better than a far-left progressive. That isn’t clarity. That’s compromise. That is not principle, it’s expediency. And expediency is exactly what RCV teaches voters to accept.

Supporters call this “nuance” and say it reduces polarization. But nuance at the expense of morals, values, and principle is nothing to celebrate. It breeds cynicism. It teaches voters to accept the lesser of evils, to grow comfortable with blurred lines until those lines disappear altogether. Instead of energizing citizens to seek out leaders who will defend their morals and values, it dulls convictions into tolerances and leaves us with a government that does nothing bold and solves nothing real.

The irony is that RCV doesn’t even fix polarization. Australia and Maine prove it often reshuffles the outcome without changing the ideological split. As seven states rejected RCV initiatives in 2024, fearing exactly this tactical fog, Alaskans must be next. We must repeal and outlaw RCV. Its only success is creating the illusion of consensus, a synthetic unity that papers over cracks without repairing the foundation.

At its core, RCV is not about empowering voters. It is about managing them. It channels elections into a controlled spectrum where “not that bad” becomes the winning slogan. That is not the Alaska way, and it is not the American way. We are a state built on conviction, not convenience. We argue hard, we vote clear, and we live with the results. Candidates should not have to say, “If you can’t vote for me as your first choice, make sure you rank me second” - it seems unAmerian to campaign for second place; kind of like a particpation trophy.

Ranked Choice Voting, like moral relativism, erodes the binary clarity of one person, one vote. It makes elections less about right and wrong and more about what is “acceptable.” And in doing so, it risks leaving us with a uni-party system where choices disappear, convictions weaken, and government grows detached from the people it serves.

We deserve elections where the people decide who leads. That’s plain Alaskan common sense. Not a computer algorithm. Repeal Ranked Choice Voting now - before the spectrum swallows our choices whole, and with them, our state and eventually our republic.