Debating the Future of Our Republic: Ranked Choice Voting in the Crosshairs

It was a regular October day. The air was getting crisper, and the daylight was fading faster with every passing evening, as winter prepared to settle in. I could see the snow inching down the mountains when my phone rang. It was my grandfather. We chatted casually, first about the weather, then about his recent hunting trip. But soon the conversation turned to politics. Out of the blue, he told me he didn’t understand his ballot.

I paused. "What do you mean?" I asked, thinking it must have been a simple misunderstanding. That’s when he told me about his confusion over the Ranked Choice Voting system on his ballot. At first, I tried explaining the ballot and the system to him, then it hit me, maybe the issue is not my grandfather, maybe it’s the Ranked Choice Voting system.

That phone call stuck with me—not just for a few days, but for weeks, months, and eventually years. I couldn’t shake it. If my grandfather, a sharp, experienced voter, was struggling with understanding his ballot, what did that mean for others? Call it an origin story or a spark of inspiration, but that conversation marked the beginning of my deep dive into Ranked Choice Voting, leading me to write the repeal of ranked choice voting, leading the ballot drive with the most signatures by an individual nearly 2,000 and the most signatures in a single day (580), two court battles, debates and discussions with legislators, advocates, and even multiple presidential candidates.

After gathering 42,000 signatures across the largest state in the country—95% of them from dedicated volunteers—and traveling coast to coast to sound the alarm about the concerns surrounding Ranked Choice Voting, I find myself reflecting on the journey. Here’s my story, the who, what, where, when, why, and how the RCV repeal made it to the ballot in Alaska, and why I’ve dedicated two years of my life to this cause. I did it for my grandfather, who first sparked the realization that many voters were lost in this system. I did it for the Alaskans who felt confused and overwhelmed, for the veteran who told me they would never vote again, and for the woman who broke down in tears at the voting booth, paralyzed by a ballot she didn’t understand. I did it for you—and for the future generations of Alaskans who deserve a clear, fair, and accessible way to vote.

Debate 1: Oil & Gas Debate in March 2023 – Opponent Former Representative Andrew Halcrow

I’ve debated Ranked Choice Voting across five states, but the first time was a nerve-wracking experience. It was March 2023, and I stood in front of more than 500 oil and gas executives at the Captain Cook Hotel in Anchorage, Alaska. My opponent? Former Alaska Representative Andrew Halcrow. I was just 32 at the time, with no political or debate experience. I had done my research, but still, the pressure was immense. I couldn’t help but worry whether I was truly prepared for what lay ahead. 

Despite my nerves, I put together a solid presentation, one that relied on clear facts, compelling data, and an explanation that the audience could easily understand. To my surprise, I walked away feeling not only confident but also like I had won the debate. The feedback I received suggested that others felt the same. Halcrow leaned heavily on emotional appeals and shifted the conversation toward the economy, a topic that wasn’t even the focus of our debate. But I stuck to the subject at hand, and it paid off. That first debate set the tone for many more to come, each one reinforcing my belief that sometimes, being clear, grounded, and prepared can cut through even the toughest opposition.

Link: https://youtu.be/aXHKWGRoUPM

Debate / Discussion 2: Illinois Legislative Task Force – March 2024 – Opponents Secretary of State of Maine Shenna Bellows – Alaska Senator Cathy Giessel

I was invited by an Illinois legislator to join a task force Zoom call on Ranked Choice Voting. The call had a range of voices, including several from Alaska—Senator Cathy Giessel on the pro-RCV side and Representative Sarah Vance on the anti-RCV side. I listened as Senator Giessel made her case, even filming part of it. Also on the call was Shenna Bellows, the Secretary of State from Maine, best known for her attempt to unilaterally remove President Trump from the ballot in Maine, a move that was later overturned by the courts. 

Their arguments? Predictably hollow, leaning heavily on FairVote talking points, which is the largest RCV promoter in the U.S. They relied on small surveys to claim that Alaskans "understood and liked" RCV. Senator Giessel’s presence was especially interesting—she’s famous for losing her race in 2020 to Senator Roger Holland in a Republican primary, only to join the Alaskans for Better Elections (the RCV lobby in Alaska) as a board member. She went on to win in 2022, beating Holland, and now points to her victory as "proof" the system works. Sure, if losing your party's primary but later winning thanks to a system that bypasses that very process is proof, then maybe she has a point.

In my view, using shallow talking points funded by millions in dark money to justify a system’s success doesn’t hold water. And spotlighting figures like Shenna Bellows, who overstepped her authority to influence a presidential election, as champions of RCV only further weakens their case. She’s not even an elected official and didn’t contribute anything meaningful to the conversation. To me, putting someone like her and Senator Giessel at the forefront of your argument only invites skepticism.

Represenative Sarah Vance was fantastic and pointed out how RCV caused the lowest voter turnout in history in Alaska 2022 General Election, a point that I also brought up and regularly use. Another Election official in Utah was also on the call and addressed that in Utah they are using RCV in test cases in local elections and he witnessed a 10% drop from one election to the next after implementing RCV. Remember one of the main claims of RCV proponents, is that it increases turnout, obviously not the case in many places that have used RCV.

Debate 3: “Father” of Ranked Choice Voting in Oakland and San Francisco – June 2024 Opponent Steve Chessin

This debate was especially nerve-wracking. At the time, the repeal of Ranked Choice Voting was on the ballot, but it was tied up in multiple lawsuits. We eventually won those cases, but heading into this debate, the stakes felt higher than ever. My opponent, Steve Chessin, wasn’t just another advocate—he’s widely regarded as the father of Ranked Choice Voting in Oakland and San Francisco, two cities that had been using the system for over 14 and 20 years respectively. I knew I’d be up against a seasoned expert, someone deeply knowledgeable and well-versed in the mechanics of RCV.

The pressure was on. I didn’t just have to debate RCV; I was representing the "No Change" stance, while three other panelists presented arguments for different voting methods. Each of these methods fell under what I like to call "Multiple Choice Voting Systems" (MCV)—systems where voters select more than one candidate per race. I studied relentlessly, determined to be ready for anything Chessin and the other panelists might throw my way. This was more than just a debate about voting systems; it was about presenting a clear, compelling argument that would hold up under the scrutiny of someone who had spent decades advocating for the very system I was challenging.

By the end of the debate, it became clear—I was more knowledgeable and prepared than my opponent, even he had to admit there’s no such thing as a perfect voting system. What started as a four-way discussion between RCV, STAR, Approval Voting, and No Change quickly shifted. It became RCV standing alone, with No Change, STAR, and Approval Voting all turning their focus on RCV. The debate zeroed in on the serious issues that RCV’s advocates and promoters don’t want to confront—dark money backing the movement, the flaws in the system they gloss over, and why the RCV lobby avoids openly marketing it under its actual name. Ever wonder why they don’t sell it as "Ranked Choice Voting"? It’s simple—because it’s unpopular. If they were honest about what RCV truly entails, without the spin or the smoke and mirrors, no one would buy it.

Steve Chessin hails from California, and he’s rooted in the heart of where Ranked Choice Voting is a fixture. But let’s talk about Oakland—where Mayor Sheng Thao, elected with only a third of the vote through RCV, is now under FBI investigation for taking campaign contributions from a sex trafficking and drug ring. She’s also about to face a recall election this November, the first mayor in Oakland’s history to be in such a position. Oakland had serious issues with RCV tabulation during the 2022 elections, which even caught the attention of the NAACP. They demanded a recount, which was never conducted, after election officials mistakenly declared the wrong winner, only to reverse their decision after realizing their error and a lengthy court case.

Across the country, another prominent figure, Eric Adams, was also elected using Ranked Choice Voting—an election where over 140,000 ballots were thrown out, exhausted during the tabulation process. And like Thao, Adams is facing an FBI investigation. He’s also the first sitting mayor of New York City to face criminal charges while in office. It’s a troubling pattern that raises a lot of questions about the integrity of a system like RCV when it’s producing leaders who end up in these kinds of situations.

Link: https://youtu.be/Px-7EojsjBo?si=qyj-7iUfIJb2Zg-W

Debate 4: Oregon Legislators in Portland – September 2024 Opponents Chief Sponsor Senator Jeanne Solloman (D) Representative Mark Gamba (D) Sponsor Representative Charlie Conrad (I)

I stepped into the debate feeling confident this time. The opponents on the other side were led by Chief Sponsor of the Oregon RCV Legislation Senator Jeanne Solloman (D), Representative Mark Gamba (D), and Independent Representative Charlie Conrad. I had worked closely with Oregon Representative Ed Diehl throughout the preparation, ensuring our arguments were solid and well-researched. From the outset, I knew we were ready.

The debate went as expected—civil, but we were not afraid to challenge the claims from the pro-RCV side. They were caught in falsehoods more than once, and while they relied heavily on emotional appeals, we came armed with data. Their claims that RCV is more civil? Proven wrong. They said it was cheaper? I countered with hard numbers showing otherwise (Alaska RCV was 328% more expensive). They insisted it would help third parties, but RCV hasn’t delivered on that promise either. And the spoiler issue? Even the New York Times acknowledged there’s a spoiler in Alaska’s U.S. House election—Eric Hafner, an incarcerated criminal running as a Democrat that may spoil Rep. Pelotla’s reelection bid.

I pointed out that the Alaska Democratic Party was so worried about Hafner’s impact that they sued to remove another Democrat from the ballot—and lost. It’s clear the system only seems appealing when it benefits their candidate. In the end, our side was celebrated as the winner of the debate, adding another accomplishment to the list. This wasn’t just about winning—it was about exposing the truth behind the flawed promises of Ranked Choice Voting.

Link: https://youtu.be/_a6bAPpoEbY?si=nMPvea4exrxhSXsq

Debate 5: September 2024 – Opponent Alaska Representative Jesse Sumner

Debating Republicans who promote Ranked Choice Voting isn’t new to me, but Representative Sumner’s case was particularly interesting. He has a history of backing questionable causes. For instance, he donated to several Mat-Su officials who were facing recall elections for their anti-conservative stances and private conversations—those officials were eventually recalled. This time, Sumner partnered with Art Hackney to push a curious narrative: if we could rewind time and replace the traditional voting system that America has used for over 200 years, including in Alaska since its founding, certain Republicans might have won elections they lost.

Sure, hindsight is fascinating, but it doesn’t make for a strong argument. You can’t go back and definitively say that something would have happened differently. It’s purely speculative. There’s no real basis to claim that a different outcome was guaranteed just because the system changed. It’s a flawed argument built on assumptions, not facts.

Representative Sumner kept pushing, asking me to name a Democrat who won in 2022 that shouldn’t have. My answer was straightforward: Mary Peltola, Cathy Giessel and Lisa Murkowski. If we had held a traditional Republican primary, they would have made it through, and we’d have a different U.S. Senator and a different representative in the House. I also brought up a recent example from Boulder, Colorado, where RCV was used for the first time in 2023. In that race, the moderate Republican had more votes in the first round, but once the votes from the Democrat Socialist were transferred to the Democrat, the Democrat ended up winning. It’s a clear illustration of how RCV can shift outcomes, even when the initial vote count favors a different candidate.

Link: https://x.com/907honest/status/1828505814107365433?s=46

Debate 6: September 2024 – Opponent Presidential Candidate Chase Oliver (Libertarian)

The final debate came as a surprise—I never expected to be invited to debate a Presidential Candidate. Throughout my travels, I’ve met some incredible people: I’ve presented alongside U.S. House of Representatives member Andy Biggs from Arizona multiple times, and shared a stage with U.S. Senator Dan Sullivan, and even had the chance to shake hands give my book to, and discuss Ranked Choice Voting with then-presidential candidate, Governor Ron DeSantis. But debating a presidential candidate? That felt like another level, and I was excited.

I threw myself into preparation, studying even more than usual. During the debate, I was struck by the arguments coming from Chase Oliver, the Libertarian Presidential Candidate. We had a live comment stream, and I watched as people reacted to his points—many of which had already been debunked by election scientists and in my previous debates. The audience was not buying his arguments, and the audience was overwhelmingly progressive. Oliver repeatedly referenced how he played a decisive role in the Georgia runoff election between Warnock and Walker, claiming that Ranked Choice Voting would have prevented the Libertarian from splitting the vote and causing the runoff.

Sure, it’s true that he was a so-called "spoiler" in that election, but I pointed out that we’ve had spoilers in two U.S. House races in Alaska under RCV as well. In 2022, the math showed that Sarah Palin acted as the spoiler, with Nick Begich being the most preferred candidate by the majority of voters. And in 2024, we have an even more striking example—an incarcerated Democrat from New York who has never set foot in Alaska could potentially act as the spoiler that may cost Rep. Mary Peltola her seat.

Oliver argued that RCV eliminates the need for traditional runoffs, claiming it creates a mandate when a candidate crosses the 50% mark. But I countered, pointing out the truth about exhausted ballots—votes that are literally discarded in the process, reducing the total number of votes counted and artificially inflating the "majority." In reality, neither Lisa Murkowski nor Mary Peltola received over 50% of the vote in 2022 when you account for all the exhausted ballots. So, when they claimed they had a majority, it simply wasn’t true, it was a manufactured majority.

Chase Oliver and I found common ground on at least one point during the debate: he argued that Alaska’s version of Ranked Choice Voting wasn’t ideal. He advocated for a closed primary system, where each political party could nominate its own candidates to appear on the general election ballot. On that, I agreed 100%. While I don’t support using Ranked Choice Voting, I appreciated that we saw eye to eye on the importance of closed primaries. It was refreshing to hear someone I was debating align with my perspective on that issue.

In the debate, I also took the opportunity to highlight the overwhelming amount of money that had been poured into Alaska to attack me and to prevent the repeal of Ranked Choice Voting. All of it was funded by out-of-state millionaires and billionaires, while grassroots Alaskans were the ones carrying the petitions and gathering the signatures. I made it clear that I hadn’t partnered with any political party in the fight to repeal Ranked Choice Voting. This was a true grassroots effort, led by Alaskans who believed in the cause.

Link: https://youtu.be/M95MA-z_V2g?feature=shared

Throughout my fight in Alaska and beyond, I’ve learned countless lessons. I hope that my journey serves as a testament to Alaskans—and to all Americans—about how an ordinary guy, with no legal or political experience, can stand up to out-of-state millionaires and billionaires. I battled them not just in the public arena, but in both the Alaska Superior Court and the Alaska Supreme Court from March 2024 to September 2024, enduring six hours of deposition and two hours of testimony. Nearly two years of my life have gone into getting this on the ballot. I did it for Alaskans, and I couldn’t have done it without the support of over 500 volunteers and every person who signed the petitions.