Criticism of Preferential Voting

The Republican base heard some negative things about preferential voting after a Democrat defeated Sarah Palin for the U.S. House seat in Alaska. But the Alaska system is nothing like the preferential voting that can help Republicans win: That race swapped primaries for a free-for-all “top four” election — where the leading Republican encouraged supporters not to support the other Republican. President Trump, frustrated with the loss, soured on “ranked choice voting.” This election was a classic example of how campaigns should not be run, but we shouldn’t shoot ourselves in the foot because of one election in Alaska.

The Republican National Committee responded to the loss in Alaska by passing a resolution condemning ranked choice voting, but Republican voters shouldn’t throw the baby out with the bathwater.

Not every state party or jurisdiction will decide that preferential voting makes sense for them. That’s the way it should work.

We do know that too often, plurality voting primaries produce weak candidates and a divided base. We also know that preferential voting has been used to nominate winning conservative candidates and unite state parties. As Republican Governor Doug Burgum wrote when he vetoed a bill to ban ranked choice and approval voting in North Dakota:

“In North Dakota, we frequently rail against federal overreach that impacts states’ rights. If we truly believe in limited government and local control, we can begin by honoring the boundaries, intent and spirit of home rule charters, especially when there is no evidence of any harm having occurred from trusting the residents of cities to have self-determination within the bounds of their home rule charters.”

States, parties and voters should continue to improve and strengthen their nomination processes as they see fit.