> ## Content Index > Fetch the complete content index at: https://ivn.us/llms.txt > Use this file to discover other available public pages before exploring further. # Alaska Made Elections Matter Again. Now They Want to Kill the System - URL: https://ivn.us/alaska-made-elections-matter-again-now-they-want-to-kill-the-system/ - Published: 2026-08-31T13:33:19.000Z - Updated: 2026-08-31T13:33:19.000Z - Description: Alaska is testing a new election system designed to increase competition and deliver better results for voters. As opponents push for repeal, the state's 2026 races show how ranked-choice voting and open primaries are reshaping elections. - Author: Election Solutions Bulletin - Tags: Open Primaries, Ranked Choice Voting, Alaska, #Top-Story *Editor's Note: The following is the Election Solutions Bulletin (ESB) newsletter from August 28, 2026\. ESB is a project of the Institute for Political Innovation.* How to Restructure Voting to Get Things Done and Save Democracy - Look to Alaska, the laboratory testing an election system that aims to increase competition and get better results for voters. - The results of the first round of 2026 voting for Senate in Alaska: a large field, an incumbent who finishes second but may still win, a Democratic Socialist who isn’t a spoiler, and two candidates with the same name. - An independent who fishes for a living finishes a strong second in the Alaska U.S. House race. - Opponents are trying for a second time to repeal Final Four Elections in Alaska. Why is Elon Musk, who wanted to start a third party, giving $1.5 million to the campaign? - The big question: Is the new election system achieving its goal in Alaska? - At least 84% of U.S. House races are decided before the general election even takes place. **Alaska Is the Unlikely Laboratory to Test the Best U.S. Election Systems** Californians are considering whether to revert to closed party primaries, keep their current Top Two process or adopt a more sweeping change. To help them make a decision, they should look to Alaska, the only state so far with[ ](https://finalfiveelections.org/?ref=ivn.us)[Final Four Elections](https://finalfiveelections.org/?ref=ivn.us) (FFE). FFE comprises a primary, or first round, open to voters and candidates of all parties and independents, followed by a November general election in which the four or five candidates with the most first-round votes contend. The winner of the general election is determined by an instant runoff process, where the candidate with the least votes is eliminated in each round. When two are left, the one with the majority is the winner. In 2017, Katherine Gehl, a former manufacturing CEO with a deep interest in election mechanics, wrote a [Harvard Business School report](https://www.hbs.edu/competitiveness/research/Pages/research-details.aspx?rid=84&ref=ivn.us) with Michael Porter, the university’s well-known expert in corporate competition policy. The report addressed the unhealthy competition in politics created by party primaries and plurality voting, and first proposed this combination of open primaries and instant-runoff general elections. The report then[ ](https://www.cnn.com/2021/03/12/opinions/reform-american-political-primaries-gehl?ref=ivn.us)[made its way to Alaska](https://www.cnn.com/2021/03/12/opinions/reform-american-political-primaries-gehl?ref=ivn.us) and to a Republican lawyer named Scott Kendall, who had worked for Republican Sen. Lisa Murkowski and independent former Gov. Bill Walker. Kendall wrote a [bold ballot initiative](https://alaskansforbetterelections.com/event-recap-better-elections-hosted-by-commonwealth-north/?ref=ivn.us) around Final Four Voting, an earlier version of Final Five. Alaska voters adopted FFE in a ballot initiative in 2020, and the system was deployed for the first time in elections in 2022\. Two years later, Alaskans narrowly [ ](https://ivn.us/alaska-reject-repeal-top-4-ranked-choice-voting-repeal-2024-11-14/)[rejected a ballot measure](https://ivn.us/alaska-reject-repeal-top-4-ranked-choice-voting-repeal-2024-11-14/) to repeal the system. Now, opponents of FFE are trying to repeal it once more on Nov. 3. Alaska is the laboratory to determine how well this change can work. We’ll discuss the effects so far a bit later in this newsletter. First, let’s look at this year’s elections in the state. **How an Incumbent Republican Senator May Be Saved by the New Alaska Voting System** [Alaska held its latest primary](https://ballotpedia.org/United%5FStates%5FSenate%5Felection%5Fin%5FAlaska,%5F2026?ref=ivn.us) on Aug. 18\. In the race for U.S. Senate, 16 candidates participated, including the two-term incumbent, Republican Dan Sullivan. He faced six other Republicans, three Democrats, and candidates from the Green, Libertarian and Alaskan parties plus a few unaffiliated contenders. Among the Democrats was former Rep. Mary Peltola, who lost her U.S. House seat in the 2024 election. Peltola placed first with 48.1% of the vote; Sullivan (“Daniel S. Sullivan” on the ballot) was second at 42.7%. A Republican named Dan J. Sullivan (simply “Dan Sullivan” on the ballot) received 2.4% and a Democrat, David Leslie, 1.1%. In two months, the four will compete in the general election, where voters will be able to rank their choices, and a majority winner will emerge. (We will get to the Sullivan vs. Sullivan issue below.) This race is the marquee event in November for Alaska and possibly for the nation. It could determine control of the Senate. Leslie, the fourth-place finisher in the first round, is an Alaska Native and Democratic Socialist. In a remarkable[ interview with Northern Journal](https://www.northernjournal.com/this-democratic-socialist-could-cost-mary-peltola-votes-in-november-but-he-says-hed-actually-boost-her/?ref=ivn.us) three days after the election, he explained how, under the FFE process, he would not draw votes away from Peltola like a spoiler under legacy systems but, instead, could help her. Leslie’s big issue is the treatment by Israel, with U.S. support, of Palestinians, whose condition he believes is similar to that of his own Native people. “I really wanted to see Mary Peltola explain why she took AIPAC money, and then commit to not taking it, to saying that there are allegations of human rights abuses and crimes against humanity and genocide, and address that,” he said. Leslie also disagrees with what he sees as Peltola’s lukewarm positions on mitigating climate change and opposing the excesses of ICE. “Obviously,” said the interviewer Nathaniel Herz, “there is a concern among liberals, progressives — I think even among some folks who are very closely aligned with you politically — that your presence in the race…risks making you a spoiler to Peltola.” Leslie responded: **Mary Peltola is obviously better than Dan Sullivan in so many ways, but we can't be running campaigns on not being as bad as the other person…. By having someone who will take a strong stance on Palestine and Gaza, I am encouraging people to show up to the ballot who normally wouldn't, and will rank her second.** He explained, “These people have strong moral convictions, which is good — but they need someone to get them to the polls in the first place. I am that candidate that will allow these people to vote their values, and then they will rank Mary Peltola second. If I was not in this race, they would not be there at all.” Leslie received only 1.1% of the vote in the primary, but the general election will be close, and his supporters could tip the balance. “I am running so that more progressives, liberals, and Democrats show up — so they will at least rank me and Peltola, so we can get Dan Sullivan out of office,” he said. Leslie also says that Alaskans, now with four years of experience, have better knowledge of the FFE system. “I have had people express concern that people will only vote for who they believe in the most, and ultimately end up submitting an exhausted ballot,” he told Herz. “I really, truly believe we are still fully understanding the importance of ranked choice voting, as we continue to relitigate it.” The candidate added: **There are some people who are only going to vote for one person, and that is their right. But we must exercise our rights and tools of democracy to make sure that we get the best candidates we can. And I believe ranked choice voting is that way, and again, I am only running because we have it. It is so important that we maintain it and we use it to its fullest extent.** In addition, if Peltola wants the votes of Leslie’s supporters, she may adjust her own views on his most important issues – just as independent Ross Perot, running for President in 1992, helped move Democrat Bill Clinton toward balancing the federal budget when he came to office. Paul Begala, chief strategist for the Clinton-Gore campaign,[ ](https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/ross-perot-didnt-win-but-he-did-change-america/2019/07/10/607db720-a325-11e9-b732-41a79c2551bf%5Fstory.html?ref=ivn.us)[gave credit to Perot](https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/ross-perot-didnt-win-but-he-did-change-america/2019/07/10/607db720-a325-11e9-b732-41a79c2551bf%5Fstory.html?ref=ivn.us) for making “deficit reduction a central pillar of his economic plan.” The Alaska Senate race has developed into a demonstration of the benefits of more competition in a general election. “There is so much power” in the FFE system, said Leslie. “It has been so important for us to have that in Alaska. We are setting the path for so many other states to join us.” The Senate race has also drawn attention because of the third-place finisher, whose name, like the Senator’s, is Dan Sullivan, or “Petersburg Dan,” as he’s called for his residence. Kendall, the originator of FFE in Alaska, wrote in an[ ](https://www.adn.com/opinions/2026/08/12/opinion-our-nation-has-a-long-history-with-election-stunts-alaskas-current-system-is-built-to-neutralize-them/?ref=ivn.us)[opinion piece in the Anchorage Daily News](https://www.adn.com/opinions/2026/08/12/opinion-our-nation-has-a-long-history-with-election-stunts-alaskas-current-system-is-built-to-neutralize-them/?ref=ivn.us) on Aug. 12: **National partisan operatives want to weaponize these similar names by confusing Alaskans who intend to vote for Sen. Sullivan into wasting their votes by mistakenly voting for Petersburg Dan. Most Alaskans find those tactics distasteful, as do I. Regardless of whether you support the incumbent or his main challenger, no one should be rooting for Alaskans’ votes to be wasted by trickery. D.C.-style gamesmanship doesn’t fly up here.** The U.S. has a long history of dirty tricks and political stunts, including[ ](https://reason.com/volokh/2026/08/18/voter-ignorance-and-confusion-caused-by-candidates-with-similar-names/?ref=ivn.us)[similarly named candidates](https://reason.com/volokh/2026/08/18/voter-ignorance-and-confusion-caused-by-candidates-with-similar-names/?ref=ivn.us), to try to influence the outcome of elections, but, Kendall writes, “Unlike the old system, our current system of an open primary and RCV blunts the impact of such shenanigans.” Under the old system, he writes, a candidate like Petersburg Dan could appear on the general election ballot as an independent, causing thousands of votes from a confused electorate to be siphoned off from Incumbent Dan and possibly making him lose. But under FFE, “any voter who is truly confused as to which Dan is which can simply rank them both and be sure that their support for Sen. Sullivan will ultimately be registered in the final results.” Lately,[ ](https://www.politico.com/news/2026/06/21/fec-republican-meddling-democratic-primaries-00969281?ref=ivn.us)[Republicans](https://www.politico.com/news/2026/06/21/fec-republican-meddling-democratic-primaries-00969281?ref=ivn.us) and [Democrats](https://www.ap.org/news-highlights/spotlights/2024/a-secretive-group-recruited-far-right-candidates-in-key-us-house-races-it-could-help-democrats/?ref=ivn.us) have been “spending millions to interfere in each other’s closed primaries and run spoiler third-party candidates in the general election,” wrote Kendall. “None of this is unique to our open primary election system in Alaska. The only difference is that Alaska actually has a mechanism for solving the spoiler effect and ensuring a majority winner.” The animosity toward FFE among both Democratic and Republican establishments is easy to understand. The system is a challenge to a duopoly that prefers the unhealthy competition that prevails in every state but Alaska. But much of the anti-FFE sentiment is simply misinformed. A good example is an[ ](https://www.wsj.com/opinion/alaskas-ranked-choice-travesty-7b29a200?ref=ivn.us)[opinion piece by Kim Strassel](https://www.wsj.com/opinion/alaskas-ranked-choice-travesty-7b29a200?ref=ivn.us) of the Wall Street Journal on Aug. 20\. Strassel first argued that too many candidates are running: “insane complexity,” she called it. In fact, Alaska, as she admits, allows practically anyone to run with minimal (or no) signatures required and only a $100 filing fee. When Sullivan first ran, pre-FFE, in 2014, there were eight candidates in three party primaries (Republican, Democrat and Libertarian) and four in the general election (just as now). [That general](https://ballotpedia.org/United%5FStates%5FSenate%5Felection%5Fin%5FAlaska,%5F2020?ref=ivn.us) was instructive. Sullivan won with a plurality – not majority – of the vote. He received 48% to 46% for Democratic incumbent Mark Begich, son of a former U.S. Representative and uncle of a current one. A Libertarian candidate got 4% of the ballots – votes that likely would have gone to Sullivan. In other words, Sullivan nearly lost in a first-past-the-post system, but in an FFE system he almost certainly would have won by a larger margin if the bulk of the Libertarian votes flowed to him in the second or third round. “Alaska’s system dramatically increases the spoiler potential,” wrote Strassel. In fact, FFE is designed to eliminate the spoiler problem. As in the Libertarian example above, votes can’t be siphoned off by a third-party candidate, whose ballots instead will be distributed after the first round of counting. Also, as Leslie said, such a candidate can help a Republican or Democrat by bringing people to the polls who might otherwise stay away. Gehl wrote of FFE in a piece in RealClear Politics on Aug. 23: **It demolishes the single greatest barrier to entry in American politics – the spoiler – and forces every candidate to win real competition on the merits. That is not a left-wing scheme (or a right-wing one). It is free markets for our republic, and it is the purest application of your own creed I can offer arriving, at last, in the one market where you have been strangely content to let a protectionist market thrive.** Strassel also raises the red herring of Petersburg Sullivan, who, of course, would almost certainly be running in the general election as an independent under the old system. He made the runoff, but barely. Under the old system, he would automatically be on the general election ballot. She also cites the millions of dollars funneled into the race to game the first round by skimming votes from Sullivan and Peltola and sending them to fringe candidates. This kind of gaming is becoming common under the systems used by other states, and it is far more difficult for the gaming to have consequences under FFE. For example, in an effort to have an easier time in the general election, Democrats can boost an extremist candidate in a Republican primary by setting up a group to run ads supporting him or her. Sen. Claire McCaskill of Missouri[ ](https://www.businessinsider.com/sen-influenced-primary-to-get-reelected-2015-8?ref=ivn.us)[used this strategy](https://www.businessinsider.com/sen-influenced-primary-to-get-reelected-2015-8?ref=ivn.us) in 2012 to elevate a far-right Republican in his party primary, and it has been deployed by both parties ever since. Under FFE, such a gambit probably would not work because both extremist and moderate would make the general election. Strassel clearly supports Sullivan, and if the primary results are an indication, he would lose to Peltola in the plurality general election that prevails in nearly every state. Under FFE, which requires a majority, Sullivan has a decent chance to retain his seat. **In the Alaska U.S. House Race, an Independent Commercial Fisherman Finishes a Strong Second** The race for Alaska’s single U.S. House seat drew 14 challengers to Peltola’s successor, incumbent Republican Rep. Nick Begich III, nephew of Mark. Also running were two other Republicans as well as four Democrats, two Libertarians and six unaffiliated or independent candidates. Nick Begich III finished first with 46.1% of the vote, and Bill Hill, an independent, was second with 30.9%. The third-place candidate, Matt Schultz, a Democrat, dropped out of the general. The number-four and five candidates were also Democrats. Hill, like Leslie, is another unusual candidate. He is a lifelong commercial fisherman and former educator and construction worker. His platform includes “lower costs for working families, protecting reproductive freedom, and taking on corporate greed squeezing everyday Alaskans.” The governor’s race, without an incumbent, attracted 12 Republicans, three Democrats and two unaffiliated candidates. Its outcome was tighter. Democrat Jonathan Kreiss-Tomkins, who was elected to the state House of Representatives at the age of 24 (Alaska’s minimum is just 21), was first with 21.6%; Tom Begich, another Democrat, was second at 20.1%. Tom, a former Minority Leader of the state Senate, is the brother of Mark and the uncle of Nick III. The other two candidates in the general election are both Republicans, splitting 18.8%. Next in line but not making the runoff were four Republicans who received a total of 25.9% of the vote. In addition, Alaska will elect a lieutenant governor, 10 state Senators, and all 40 state Representatives. All the races are Final Four Elections. What makes Alaska different from every other state is that, except in a few legislative races where the incumbent is unopposed, no one knows the day after the primary who the ultimate winners would be. The general election counts. Alaska voters will not be faced with a mass of lesser-of-two-evils choices in November. They will have four choices. There won’t be spoilers, and the winners will all have true majority support. **Alaska’s Voting System Welcomes Independents. Why on Earth Is Elon Musk Trying to Repeal It?** Also on the ballot on Nov. 3 is Measure 2, the[ ](https://ballotpedia.org/Alaska%5FBallot%5FMeasure%5F2,%5FRepeal%5FTop-Four%5FRanked-Choice%5FVoting%5FInitiative%5F%282026%29?ref=ivn.us)[second attempt to repeal](https://ballotpedia.org/Alaska%5FBallot%5FMeasure%5F2,%5FRepeal%5FTop-Four%5FRanked-Choice%5FVoting%5FInitiative%5F%282026%29?ref=ivn.us) the Final Four Elections system and replace it with a party primary system and conventional general election. The first try at repeal lost in 2024 by just two-tenths of a percentage point. This time, the repeal effort has the financial support of Elon Musk, the richest man in the world. Also backing repeal are President Trump, who called FFE “ONE OF THE GREATEST THREATS TO DEMOCRACY,” as well as Alaska Republican politicians such as outgoing Gov. Mike Dunleavy and current U.S. Rep. Nick Begich. [Musk gave $1.5 million](https://aws.state.ak.us/ApocReports/Common/View.aspx?ID=7730&ViewType=IE&ref=ivn.us) in July to the [Aurora Action Network](https://www.adn.com/politics/2026/07/28/outside-megadonors-fuel-campaigns-over-the-future-of-alaskas-election-system/?ref=ivn.us), a Wisconsin-based political action committee, which “collected contributions from numerous billionaire megadonors, including Dick Uihlein, Jeff Yass, Timothy Mellon and Hilcorp owner Jeffery Hildebrand,”[ ](https://alaskapublic.org/news/politics/2026-08-11/elon-musk-spends-big-in-push-to-repeal-alaskas-voting-system?ref=ivn.us)[reported Alaska Public Media](https://alaskapublic.org/news/politics/2026-08-11/elon-musk-spends-big-in-push-to-repeal-alaskas-voting-system?ref=ivn.us) on Aug. 11\. “Aurora Action Network then gave the repeal campaign $1 million in late July.” According to the media report, “Musk’s contribution, which make up a sizable share of the repeal campaign’s fundraising, could prove pivotal for the future of Alaska’s elections.” Musk’s support is puzzling. A year ago, he announced the[ ](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PKlkLX8oGoY&ref=ivn.us)[formation of a new party](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PKlkLX8oGoY&ref=ivn.us), the America Party. As Gehl wrote in her[ ](https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2026/08/23/maga%5Fthe%5Fdsa%5Fand%5Fthe%5Fpolitics%5Fof%5Fno%5Fcompetition%5F154431.html?ref=ivn.us)[RealClear Politics piece](https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2026/08/23/maga%5Fthe%5Fdsa%5Fand%5Fthe%5Fpolitics%5Fof%5Fno%5Fcompetition%5F154431.html?ref=ivn.us), “Within a month, he’d pumped the brakes on it. Money wasn’t the issue – he’s the richest man in the world. The barrier is plurality voting and the dreaded ‘spoiler’ label.” No state is more hospitable to third-party or independent candidates than Alaska, as we can see in the case of Bill Hill, the independent who finished second in the first round of the race for U.S. House and has a shot at winning under the FFE system. [An Independent Voter News article](https://ivn.us/an-independent-just-broke-through-in-alaska-as-republicans-try-to-kill-the-system-that-made-it-possible/) on Aug. 21 carried the headline, “An Independent Just Broke Through in Alaska – as Republicans Try to Kill the System That Made It Possible.” Opposition to Final Four and Five Elections, in general, is not an exclusive domain of Republicans. In most states, the Democratic establishment doesn’t like it either, as a failed ballot initiative in 2024 in Nevada[ ](https://nevadacurrent.com/2024/11/05/nevada-voters-reject-open-primaries-ranked-choice/?ref=ivn.us)[showed](https://nevadacurrent.com/2024/11/05/nevada-voters-reject-open-primaries-ranked-choice/?ref=ivn.us). As for Alaska, Gehl wrote in RealClear Politics: “Mr. Musk, don’t fund the effort to repeal Final Four Elections in Alaska, the one state in which you could launch your new party without undue barriers….. I think you’ve received bad counsel.” **Is Final Four Achieving Its Goal in Alaska?** The 2017 Harvard paper titled,[ ](https://www.hbs.edu/competitiveness/Documents/why-competition-in-the-politics-industry-is-failing-america.pdf?ref=ivn.us)[“Why Competition in the Politics Industry Is Failing,”](https://www.hbs.edu/competitiveness/Documents/why-competition-in-the-politics-industry-is-failing-america.pdf?ref=ivn.us) had a specific goal in mind. The authors were not concerned with devising the best system to achieve fairness or equal representation or moderation or civility or speedy results on election night. Those may be nice to have, but the goal was different. It was delivering “optimal democratic outcomes” (ODO) that people want and need. Among those outcomes are “practical and effective solutions” that tackle the nation’s “important problems and expand opportunity.” A solution is a policy “that actually works and makes things better in practice.” Currently, solutions produced by America’s political system are “almost non-existent.” So in assessing whether FFE is working, we should be looking at whether legislators are elected who improve outcomes over time. As governance improves, we should see advances in metrics such as population, GDP, employment and education test scores at the state level. Just as important, other states will take notice and adopt FFE. States are in intense competition for jobs and overall prosperity. Legislators and other public officials are continually scanning the landscape to see what other states are up to. If they see a state with FFE succeeding, they will take notice and take similar action. Legislators in most states are elected under a party primary system, and they will be reluctant to change the process, but their constituents – perhaps with business leaders in the vanguard -- will push them. This dynamic will be super-charged if California, the largest state, adopts Final Five Elections, a later version of Alaska’s Final Four. Just four years is not long enough to see results like job growth, but Alaska has made beneficial changes in the way its legislature operates, paving the way for results we can measure. Alaska, the third-smallest state by population, is also literally an outlier, separated from the rest of the U.S. by 500 miles of Canadian territory. The last time Alaska gave a majority of its votes to a Democratic presidential candidate was 1964, but it does elect independents and Democrats to state legislative and national office. [Only 24% of Alaskans](https://independentvoterproject.org/voter-stats/ak?ref=ivn.us) are registered Republicans – a lower share than California – and 12% are Democrats. Some 63% are independents. That compares with 45% of Americans who identify as independents, a new record,[ ](https://news.gallup.com/poll/700499/new-high-identify-political-independents.aspx?ref=ivn.us)[according to Gallup](https://news.gallup.com/poll/700499/new-high-identify-political-independents.aspx?ref=ivn.us), which does an annual survey. FFE has increased competition in Alaska elections and given more independent candidates a shot at office. As Nick Troiano[ ](https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2026/08/24/alaskas-top-four-election-is-model-states-with-party-primaries/?ref=ivn.us)[wrote in the Washington Post](https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2026/08/24/alaskas-top-four-election-is-model-states-with-party-primaries/?ref=ivn.us) on Aug. 24, “In the first election cycle employing the new system, only [12 percent](https://www.uniteamericainstitute.org/research/alaskas-election-model-how-the-top-four-nonpartisan-primary-system-improves-participation-competition-and-representation?ref=ivn.us) of Alaska’s state legislative general elections were uncontested, half the rate from 2020….. [Seventy percent](https://docsend.com/view/efn8c4xupi2hjpbv?ref=ivn.us) of state and federal general elections in Alaska this fall will feature competitions other than one Democrat versus one Republican, without the fear of [“spoilers.”](https://electionscience.org/education/spoiler-effect?ref=ivn.us) FFE has also fostered cooperation to get solutions.[ ](https://www.csg.org/2025/08/27/civility-and-cooperation-in-the-last-frontier/?ref=ivn.us)[The Council of State Governments issued a report](https://www.csg.org/2025/08/27/civility-and-cooperation-in-the-last-frontier/?ref=ivn.us) that stated: **At a time when statehouses across the nation have become characterized by political rhetoric and partisan divides, a group of state lawmakers in Alaska is quietly taking a different tack and making a go at something rarely talked about in the modern political era: earnest bipartisan cooperation.** The report continued, “Since 2024, leaders in both the Alaska state Senate and House have taken the road less traveled and opted to govern via a bipartisan coalition, composed of Republicans, Democrats and a handful of independents.” Currently, the[ ](https://ballotpedia.org/Alaska%5FState%5FSenate?ref=ivn.us)[Alaska Senate](https://ballotpedia.org/Alaska%5FState%5FSenate?ref=ivn.us) has 11 Republicans and 9 Democrats, and all but six participate in a bipartisan governing coalition, which is led by a Republican Senate President, a Republican Majority Leader, a Democratic Rules Committee Chairman, and a Finance Committee leadership split between a Republican and Democrat.[ ](https://ballotpedia.org/Alaska%5FHouse%5Fof%5FRepresentatives?ref=ivn.us)[The House has its own coalition](https://ballotpedia.org/Alaska%5FHouse%5Fof%5FRepresentatives?ref=ivn.us), which includes Republicans, Democrats and Independents. These are the[ ](https://www.stateside.com/state-resource/legislative-partisan-splits?ref=ivn.us)[nation’s only bipartisan governing coalitions](https://www.stateside.com/state-resource/legislative-partisan-splits?ref=ivn.us) (Nebraska has a non-partisan unicameral legislature, but, in fact, it is[ ](https://nebraskaexaminer.com/2025/01/08/first-day-of-2025-nebraska-legislature-underscores-conservative-stronghold/?ref=ivn.us)[heavily Republican](https://nebraskaexaminer.com/2025/01/08/first-day-of-2025-nebraska-legislature-underscores-conservative-stronghold/?ref=ivn.us), with only one Democrat holding a committee chair). Bipartisanship in itself is not an end goal of FFE. The goal is optimal democratic outcomes. Still, it appears the Alaska coalitions are effective. We can’t tell yet, and the outcomes as defined by Gehl and Porter will only be delivered over time. One early step was to move all social or cultural issues, like transgender bathrooms, to the side – “because we wouldn’t find any common ground on them,”[ ](https://www.csg.org/2025/08/27/civility-and-cooperation-in-the-last-frontier/?ref=ivn.us)[said Sen. Loki Tobin](https://www.csg.org/2025/08/27/civility-and-cooperation-in-the-last-frontier/?ref=ivn.us), a Democrat. “Instead, we agreed we’d focus on the top-tier issues that we all decided were the priorities.” The Senate decides those priorities in a January retreat, then parcels out proposed legislation to committees. It’s a slow process, but it seems to be effective. The Senate President, Gary Stevens,[ ](https://alaskasenate.org/accomplishments-2025/?ref=ivn.us)[wrote](https://alaskasenate.org/accomplishments-2025/?ref=ivn.us) that the legislators in 2025 had to deal with “the difficult reality of falling oil prices,” which reduced the revenues “Alaska relies on to fund essential services.” But, wrote Stevens, “by working together across party lines, the Senate passed a budget that protects core services” but dealt with the reality of the state’s fiscal predicament. The jury is still out, but FFE may be starting to produce the results for Alaska that the supporters who that fashioned and advocated the change had predicted. **Between 9% and 16% of U.S. House Races Rank as Even Slightly Competitive, Says Cook Report** [According to the Cook Political Report](https://www.cookpolitical.com/ratings/house-race-ratings?ref=ivn.us), 366 U.S. House seats are “solid” (meaning safe) for eight a Republican (182) or a Democrat (184). The total represents 84% of all seats up for election on Nov. 3. Of the remaining 69 seats, 31 fall into Cook’s “likely” category, which tends to mean the opposition has little chance. Only 19 seats are rated “toss-up,” and another 19 “lean” toward one party or the other; combined, those two categories represent a mere 9% of the 435 House contests. Even including Cook’s “likely” category, the proportion is just 16%. Rating races is no science, but, still, it appears very few seats are up for grabs even in this off-year election with the incumbent president[ ](https://www.realclearpolling.com/polls/approval/donald-trump/approval-rating?ref=ivn.us)[suffering poor approval ratings](https://www.realclearpolling.com/polls/approval/donald-trump/approval-rating?ref=ivn.us). But put all partisan thoughts aside. The truly disturbing message from these statistics is that party primaries will determine 85% to 91% of the people Americans hire to represent them in the U.S. House. And in those primaries the electorate looks very different from the mass of voters in a district. Not only are House races decided in party primaries, so are Senate contests. Today, the vast majority of states are either firmly Republican or firmly Democratic – a recent phenomenon. In just three states – Maine, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin – are two-person Senate delegations split between the two parties (we are counting Sen. Angus King, nominally an Independent, as a Democrat). In 1986, there were 23 split delegations; in 2006, there were 15. Gerrymandering, of course, does not explain Senate party homogeneity by state. It appears the main reason is self-sorting, with Democrats concentrating in coastal states and Republicans in the South and center of the country. The problem is not that states favor one party or the other; it is, again, that members of Congress are chosen in low-turnout party primaries. Final Five Elections (FFE) would go a long way toward solving the problem by providing real competition in the general election, producing winners that answer to the entire electorate and more likely to achieve optimal democratic outcomes.