The Alaska System and Its Effect on Voter Turnout
In 2020, Alaskans approved a ballot initiative to implement a single nonpartisan primary and instant runoff system of elections. After two election cycles with the system in place, voters narrowly opted to maintain it in 2024. This unique approach is meant to foster more meaningful elections, reward civility, and elevate candidates with the broadest appeal. While increasing turnout might not be an explicit objective of these types of reforms, their effect on participation is nonetheless relevant to assessing their outcomes. Opponents often point to voter confusion as an argument for maintaining plurality elections, but reviewing Alaska’s young experiment reveals a largely negligible impact on turnout—proving that voters are not intimidated by instant runoff elections.
The Alaska System, as it has come to be known, uses nonpartisan, all-candidate primaries that advance the top four vote-getters for each office. Multiple candidates from the major parties, third-party candidates and independent candidates all compete together. Each voter casts one vote, and the top four candidates qualify for the general election regardless of party affiliation. This means all four candidates could be from the same party, four different parties, or some combination thereof.
The general election uses ranked-choice voting (RCV) to implement an instant runoff election. Voters rank the candidates as they desire. If no candidate secures a majority of first-place votes in the first round, the candidate with the fewest is eliminated. Election officials then reassign those votes to the voters’ second choices. This process continues until one candidate has a majority of votes and becomes the winner.
In 2022, R Street reported evidence of the reform’s desired effects. Specifically, the all-candidate primary allowed candidates with broad appeal to succeed where they likely would have failed in a strictly partisan contest. At the general election level, bipartisan outreach and cordiality were rewarded as polarizing candidates hit hard ceilings. Since then, many observers have argued that early evidence shows the system is producing a greater number of meaningful elections and favoring more moderate candidates. With the system set to remain in place and the 2024 instant runoff results pending, researchers are likely to continue exploring these issues in the coming months and years.
Alaska’s experience also provides evidence regarding the effect instant runoff elections can have on voter turnout. RCV’s proponents point to the increased number of significant elections as one of its main attributes. As a result, we might expect higher turnout as individuals realize the increased importance of their vote. Detractors, meanwhile, suggest that RCV is too confusing for voters to engage with it. If true, this could turn voters off and lead to more people staying home on Election Day.
The data out of Alaska does not clearly validate either hypothesis; instead, it points to the conclusion that instant runoff elections have had little impact on turnout. For example, the Alaska Division of Elections reported that over 340,000 ballots had been cast in the most recent election. According to eligible voter data from the University of Florida’s Election Lab, this translates to a turnout rate of 64 percent. Compared to previous years (68 percent in 2020, 62 percent in 2016, and 59 percent in 2012), Alaska generally falls in line with its past results as well as the standard fluctuations in most of the country. Turnout in the 2022 midterm election (50 percent), the first general election with these reforms in place, was significantly lower than in 2018 (54 percent) and 2014 (55 percent).
Primary election results similarly offer little clarity. Supporters celebrated when the 2022 primary elections in Alaska saw historically high turnout among registered voters (32 percent). However, this year’s primary saw historically low turnout (18 percent), resulting in debate about the underlying causes.
Alaska’s experiences provide valuable evidence of how instant runoffs and all-candidate primaries might affect voter turnout. While the system demonstrated potential in fostering broader candidate appeal and more competitive elections, its impact on participation is less clear. Turnout trends in both primary and general elections reveal mixed results, suggesting that while the reforms do not attract new voters, they do not scare them away either.