THE PRIMARY SHOULD NOT BE A PRIVATE CLUB WITH PUBLIC FUNDING.

JUSTICE · POLITICAL JUSTICE

Published by Langhorne P. Breedlove

MONDAY, NOVEMBER 9, 2026 · 12:54 AM ET

Tags: Open Primaries · Ranked-Choice Voting · Electoral Reform · Ballot Access · Election Administration

Dear fellow American proletariat: Our political parties have perfected a fascinating arrangement. They invite the public to choose its representatives, then arrange the qualifying rounds so the finalists are often selected by a much narrower electorate. By November, the public is told to pick between the two remaining choices and call it democracy. One might reasonably ask whether the menu could contain more than the chef's favorites.

American Proletariat proposes a top-four nonpartisan primary followed by an instant-runoff ranked-choice general election for offices where that combination can lawfully and practically be adopted. The objective is to broaden competition, preserve voter choice and permit voters to express fallback preferences without running a separate runoff. It is a proposal for an electoral mechanism—not a claim that any one design guarantees better candidates, higher turnout or less polarization.

THE MANDATE

Under the proposed model, all eligible candidates for a covered office appear on one primary ballot regardless of party affiliation. Each voter selects one candidate, and the four leading candidates advance. In the general election voters may rank those candidates in preference order. First choices are counted; if no candidate has a majority of continuing votes, the lowest candidate is eliminated and ballots that ranked that candidate transfer to the next remaining preference. The process continues until the remaining candidate with the most continuing votes wins. Alaska's election authority explains these mechanics in its public guidance (Source 01).

A voter should never be required to rank all four choices. If a voter names only one candidate and that candidate is eliminated, the ballot has no further usable preference in that contest. That is an exhausted ballot—not evidence that a vote was secretly assigned to somebody else. Published tabulations must show exhausted and continuing ballots so claims of majority support use the correct denominator (Sources 01, 02).

The policy must preserve fair qualification rules, transparent recount procedures, accessible ballot design, multilingual information, independent administration and verifiable post-election audits. Changing the shape of the ballot without strengthening how votes are counted and explained would be a particularly expensive exercise in stationery.

ROOTS & HISTORY

Alaska voters approved an initiative in November 2020 creating an open top-four primary and ranked-choice general elections. The system was first used in a statewide federal special general election on August 16, 2022 (Source 01). Voters in the primary select one candidate; four advance regardless of affiliation; preferences are ranked for the general election (Source 01).

The system has not been politically uncontested. In December 2024, Alaska completed a recount on a proposal to repeal its open-primary and ranked-choice structure. The certified measure failed, with 160,973 votes against repeal and 160,230 for repeal—a difference of 743 votes (Source 03). The razor-thin margin is a reminder that election rules themselves are politically consequential, not that either side has a monopoly on democratic virtue.

Alaska voted on another repeal proposal on November 3, 2026. As of November 8, publicly reported counts showed the no-repeal side ahead, but the results were unofficial and additional eligible ballots still had to be counted (Sources 04, 05). We will not turn preliminary election-night numbers into an invented certified result. Election-system reform has to respect the election system's own rules.

TODAY & THE EVIDENCE

Ranked-choice voting is not one uniform American system. The National Conference of State Legislatures describes statewide, municipal and primary-election uses, including Alaska's combination of a top-four primary and ranked-choice general election, while other jurisdictions use different versions (Source 06). It is therefore misleading to treat results from a city's multimember race as proof of what would happen under every single-winner federal election.

Supporters argue that ranking alternatives reduces incentives for some forms of vote splitting and offers a route for candidates who are not first choices of a plurality. Critics point to voter education requirements, more complex tabulations, ballot exhaustion and the possibility that rules may favor candidates with broader but shallower support. Those are design trade-offs to investigate, not character flaws to assign to the people who disagree.

Alaska publishes first-choice totals, ranked-choice rounds and cast-vote-record information that permit closer scrutiny (Source 02). A national reform should require public, machine-readable round-by-round results and precise definitions of continuing, exhausted and undervoted ballots. Counting should be independently reproducible from lawfully disclosed election data without compromising voter secrecy.

THE LEGAL PATH

The Constitution's Elections Clause gives state legislatures initial authority over the times, places and manner of congressional elections and permits Congress to make or alter many such regulations. That authority differs from Congress's power over presidential elector timing and from its much narrower role in regulating state and local elections (Source 07). A national statute, a state statute and a local ordinance are not interchangeable legal instruments.

Congress could examine federal standards for House and Senate elections within the Elections Clause and other applicable constitutional constraints. States would need to address their own gubernatorial, legislative and other elections through their constitutions and statutes. Presidential elections raise distinct Electoral College and state-authority questions; this proposal does not automatically convert presidential elections to one national top-four contest.

Any legislation must also consider political-party association rights, ballot qualification, write-in rules, equal protection, accessibility, federal voting protections and litigation. Implementation should use clear jurisdiction-by-jurisdiction legal assessments and phased effective dates, not an executive order announcing that all fifty state constitutions have been conveniently edited.

THE PLAN

PHASE ONE · MAP WHICH ELECTIONS CAN CHANGE

Inventory covered offices, current party-primary rules, state constitutions, voting equipment and accessible voting requirements. Establish a public legal matrix showing which reforms require federal legislation, state law, constitutional amendment or local authorization. Consult election administrators, parties, independent candidates, disability advocates, language-access specialists and voters. Publish practical alternatives where a top-four model is legally unavailable.

PHASE TWO · TEST THE BALLOT BEFORE THE ELECTION

Design plain-language sample ballots and translated instructions. Run accessibility testing with voters using assistive technology and evaluate rank marking, skipped ranks and overvotes with real users. Provide no-cost explanations through mail, libraries, election offices and community partners. Pilot test counting software with public specifications, independent security review and hand-auditable ballots. An election manual should be understandable without a minor in computer science.

PHASE THREE · AUDIT EACH COUNT

Require transparent pre-election logic-and-accuracy tests, chain-of-custody procedures, risk-limiting audits where feasible, and publicly explained adjudication and recount rules. Publish each tabulation round, exhausted ballots, eligible-ballot denominators and final certification. Preserve cybersecurity and ballot secrecy while allowing independent verification. Train administrators before adoption and avoid a rushed transition in a high-stakes general election.

PHASE FOUR · EVALUATE COMPETITION AND ACCESS

Compare candidate entry, party participation, voter understanding, turnout, undervotes, exhausted ballots, counting time, recounts and full administrative cost with suitable prior and comparable elections. Study whether outcomes differ by age, geography and language access using sound methods. If evidence shows that a rule systematically confuses or excludes voters, change the rule instead of blaming the electorate.

THE ONE-YEAR & TEN-YEAR LEDGER

A credible fiscal estimate must separate one-time ballot design and voting-system procurement from recurring voter education, training, cybersecurity, certification, software maintenance, auditing, recount capability, translation and accessibility. Existing election-administration spending is baseline expenditure, not automatically a new cost. Any federal grant or mandate must identify whether state and local governments receive reimbursement and which jurisdictions participate.

Illustrative scenario only: suppose 20 jurisdictions each receive $8 million for equipment adaptation, voter education and training in year one, with $20 million in central testing and program administration. That would produce $180 million in first-year gross public costs. If each jurisdiction then required an additional $1 million per year for nine years and central oversight required $10 million annually, the subsequent nine years would add $270 million. The undiscounted hypothetical ten-year total would be $450 million before inflation or expansion. None of these inputs is an independently validated cost estimate or authorized appropriation.

An actual ten-year ledger must model different sizes of jurisdictions, existing scanner compatibility, accessible ballot systems, election frequency, vendor procurement, litigation, education, audits, staff hours, and funding formulas. Publish gross cost, existing-program offsets, any additional federal receipts or expenditures, and uncertainty bands separately. Do not manufacture savings from eliminated runoffs unless the jurisdiction actually used separately financed runoffs and a valid comparison proves the difference.

WHAT COULD GO WRONG?

Ballot exhaustion can mean the eventual winner has a majority of continuing votes but not a majority of every ballot initially cast. Administrative complexity can lengthen result reporting or create public confusion. Open primaries also change how party organizations select or endorse candidates; some may object on associational grounds. Candidates with modest resources might gain an opportunity to advance—or face higher costs in an expensive four-person general election.

The strongest critique is not that voters are incapable of ranking four choices. It is that supporters sometimes promise outcomes the method cannot guarantee. Ranked ballots are a procedure, not an antidote to corporate money, gerrymandering, misinformation or weak civic education. Likewise, conventional plurality voting may be simple to count while producing winners opposed by most participating voters. Honest comparison requires both kinds of limitations on the record.

MEASURING SUCCESS

Report eligible candidate counts, actual competition, participation, voter comprehension, ballot error and exhaustion rates, administration time, timely certification, accessibility testing, litigation, audit results, recount expenses, and cost per contest. Examine whether winners have majority support among continuing ballots and state that denominator plainly. Publish analyses that can be replicated without exposing the identity of individual voters.

A democracy need not promise that every voter will love the outcome. It should promise a contest the public can enter, understand, verify and challenge under clear rules. Four names on a ballot will not save a republic by themselves. But the republic ought to be capable of debating an election system without pretending its current plumbing descended from Mount Sinai.

SOURCES & FURTHER READING

01 · Alaska Division of Elections — Ranked Choice Voting Information and FAQ; top-four primary and instant-runoff procedure.

https://www.elections.alaska.gov/RCV.php

02 · Alaska Division of Elections — Official Election Results and Ranked Choice Voting Tabulations; historical results and tabulation definitions.

https://www.elections.alaska.gov/election-results/

03 · Alaska Lieutenant Governor — Completion of Ballot Measure 2 Recount; December 11, 2024.

https://ltgov.alaska.gov/newsroom/2024/12/lieutenant-governor-nancy-dahlstrom-announces-completion-of-ballot-measure-2-recount/

04 · Alaska Public Media — Early results show Alaskans rejecting ranked-choice voting repeal; November 3, 2026; preliminary counts.

https://alaskapublic.org/news/politics/elections/2026-11-03/early-results-show-alaskans-rejecting-ranked-choice-voting-repeal

05 · Alaska Division of Elections — November 3, 2026 General Election Results; unofficial status and future ranked-choice tabulations.

https://www.elections.alaska.gov/election-results/

06 · National Conference of State Legislatures — Ranked Choice Voting; current state and local statutory approaches.

https://www.ncsl.org/elections-and-campaigns/ranked-choice-voting

07 · Congressional Research Service — Congressional Authority to Direct How States Administer Elections, RL30747; constitutional and federalism analysis.

https://www.congress.gov/crs_external_products/RL/PDF/RL30747/RL30747.10.pdf

10 RECOMMENDED ARTICLES, ESSAYS & POLICIES

→ Explore Abolish Closed Primaries & Electoral Reform

→ Explore Automatic & Accessible Voting

→ Explore Campaign Finance & Leadership Transparency

→ Explore National Climate Adaptation

→ Explore Public Ferries, Waterways, Locks & Water Access

→ Explore Mugwumps

→ Explore Stalwarts

→ Explore Reformers, Abolitionists & Civil Rights

→ Explore Elite & Industrial Power

→ Explore Protecting Public Weather, Climate & Scientific Information

WE ARE ONE.  ·  E PLURIBUS UNUM.