Alaska’s special election results have received much attention due to the state’s use of ranked-choice voting. But another aspect of Alaska’s elections that deserves attention is its “top four” primary system – in which all candidates run in the same primary, and the top four vote-getters advance to the general election.
Variations of this system have existed for nearly 20 years, usually opting for a “top-two” version of the approach. Washington adopted a top-two system in 2004, and California put such a system in place over a decade ago. Proponents of this kind of system argue that it would lead to political reform by freeing elections from political parties.
In reality, though, this system re-entrenches the political status quo. Shortly after California adopted the system, it made headlines because a special election saw a Republican and Democratic candidate advance, when everyone expected two Democrats to advance. Many hailed this as a positive development – but before this system came into place, a Republican and Democrat would have advanced to the general election as a matter of course, so it is hard to view the change as progress.
Later that same cycle, Republican incumbent Gary Miller ran for reelection in a swing district. Many expected a close race between Miller and a Democratic opponent, but Miller and another Republican candidate advanced instead, with 26.7 percent and 24.8 percent of the vote. The Democrat missed the run-off by about 1,300 votes.
In 2016, then Attorney General Kamala Harris and Congresswoman Loretta Sanchez, both Democrats, advanced to the general election, so Republicans did not field a candidate.
Additionally, defenders of the top-two system argue that it diminishes polarization because a more moderate candidate could advance out of the primary and then win the general election with support from some voters from the other party. But this theory doesn’t prove out in deeply partisan states like California. Harris, who was well to the left of Sanchez, won in a landslide. Even with two Democrats as the nominees, California is likely to elect the more left-wing Democrat.
In August 2018, the federal government indicted Republican Congressman Duncan Hunter for misuse of campaign funds. The government had overwhelming evidence against Hunter, so many wanted him to resign. But because of California’s primary system, the GOP could not replace him. As a result, Hunter stayed on and won reelection. He then pled guilty and resigned, and his district went months without any representation.
Alaska’s current special election has seen similar issues. First, independent congressional candidate Al Gross dropped out after advancing to the general election. Gross saw a lot of success in 2020 as an independent candidate (albeit one backed by the Democrats) under Alaska’s old election system. As an independent, Gross ran a competitive race for Senate. But evidently, Gross dropped out because he found it too difficult as an independent candidate to compete in this new system.
Once Gross dropped out, only three candidates advanced to the general election. More than a dozen candidates ran for this seat, and several finished narrowly behind Gross, yet none could replace him. As with California, Alaska’s system gave voters less of a choice.
The only candidates that advanced to the general election were Democrats and Republicans. Under Alaska’s old system, in just the last decade, an independent won the governorship, a write-in candidate won a Senate race, a Libertarian received close to 30 percent for Senate, and several independents received double digit support. Yet in the first election under Alaska’s new system, there is not even a third-party candidate.
Over the last two decades, states have adopted the top-two primary system to shake up the election system. But the results in these states have consistently shown that the top-two primaries entrench the political status quo and offer voters fewer choices.
Todd Carney is a lawyer and frequent contributor to RealClearPolitics. He earned his juris doctorate from Harvard Law School. The views in this piece are his alone and do not reflect the views of his employer.