Ranked-choice voting is in effect in the Alaska and Maine Senate races. Both states operate similarly, and in both states, the race is up for grabs. Each voter can rank the candidates in the order they prefer. So, for example, I can say my first choice is A, my second choice is B, and so on.

Here’s how it works: Assume four candidates and 100 voters. If 40 voters had A as their first choice, 35 for B, 15 for C, and 10 for D, no one has the majority required in a ranked-choice election. Another count is undertaken. The candidate with the lowest number of first place votes is dropped, D in this case, and the second-place choices on those ten ballots are reallocated to the candidates who were the second choices. 

Assume that five of the ten ballots where D was the first choice had A as the second choice and five had B as the second choice. That means that both A and B have five more votes, giving A 45 votes and B 40 votes. Still neither has a majority so we have another count. C is dropped and the second choices of the voters for C reallocated. If six or more of those second choices are for A, A has more than 50 votes, a majority, and is elected. If, on the other hand, eleven or more of those fifteen had B as their second choice, then B has the majority and is elected.

Maine is unlikely to be determined by ranked-choice voting in the Senatorial election because ranking choices comes into play only when there are three or more candidates. In Maine, although several people have mounted write-in campaigns, only two candidates are on the ballot.

One is Susan Collins, the only incumbent Republican Senator up for reelection in a state that voted for Kamala Harris. Troy Jackson is the Democratic candidate.

Jackson tries to tie Collins to Trump making it a standard pro-Trump /anti-Trump battle, but there are a couple of local issues, too. Immigration enforcement became a hot-button issue after ICE killed a Colombian immigrant in Maine a few months ago. Collins opposes Trump’s immigration enforcement, but she supported increasing the ICE budget. She asked, “Do you really want to get rid of an agency that deports violent criminals?”

Collins, it is often said, had the deciding vote in favor of Brett Kavanaugh’s nomination to the Supreme Court. She stands by her vote. Kavanaugh was instrumental in voting for the Dobbs decision banning abortion. Jackson’s argument is, “Do you trust Collins to pick the next Supreme Court justice?” Jackson, who now supports abortion rights, did not always do so.

Collins touts her Senatorial seniority that has helped bring federal funds to Maine, more than $1.5 billion in recent years, she says. Jackson maintains that she has not leveraged her power wisely and tries to tie Collins to Trump for rising gas and grocery prices. Collins, on the other hand, accuses Jackson, who was a former Maine Senate president, of setting state policies that caused high energy and housing costs.

Finally, in Maine, which has significant trade with Canada, the Canadian tariffs are a flash point. Collins says that she has used her power with Trump to ameliorate the Canadian tariffs. She says that she got the tariff lifted on Canadian rock salt, which is important to Maine. Jackson responds, “You can’t eat rock salt.”

Polls have the Maine Senate race as a dead heat.

Alaska does have four candidates on the Senatorial ballot, but only two real contenders: Dan Sullivan, a Republican, a Harvard grad, a lawyer, a marine, and the current incumbent. He is opposed by Mary Peltola, a Democrat, a native American, a past member of the Alaska House of Representatives, and a one-term member of the U.S. House of Representatives. As elsewhere in the country, affordability, housing, and health care are campaign points. However, there are local issues. Alaska has a special epithet reserved for one’s opponent: To be aligned with the “Lower 48” is a terrible thing. This plays out in many ways. The federal government owns 60% of Alaskan lands, and the state is frequently in conflict with the federal government over drilling rights and roads. So, e.g., Sullivan says Peltola is “aligned with the Lower 48” by opposing expanded oil and gas drilling in the state; she, on the other hand, touts an oil project she supports that environmentalists have opposed.

The Alaska race also has a fierce battle over fisheries management. Fish are central to Alaska’s economy and identity, and fish are at the center of the campaign. Peltola, a Yup’ik Native American, says often she has been fishing since she was 6. Showing the importance of fisheries in Alaska, her campaign slogan is “Fish, Family, Freedom.”

The hot-button issue between the candidates is “bycatch,” the catching of salmon and other nontarget species from huge trawling vessels that harvest pollock and similar fish. Many blame bycatch for declines in salmon, halibut, and crab stocks. Peltola supports a ban on factory trawlers that combine fish harvests with onboard processing and distinguishes large out-of-state operators, mostly based in the state of Washington, from smaller Alaska-based operations.  Sullivan touts a bill he introduced in Congress called the Bycatch Reduction Act. Peltola plays up that the large fishing industry opposes her approach more than Sullivan’s, in essence saying if they are against me, you should be for me.

 The Trump/Doge cuts to fishery science and the National Weather Service have also been at issue. Musk supports Sullivan.

Finally, Alaska sees China as a huge market for its seafood, and tariffs have hurt this. Sullivan has stood with Trump on tariffs.

Peltola leads narrowly in the poll averages, but Alaska is a tossup. In Alaska, ranked choice might matter. Two minor candidates are also on the ballot. One is a Republican, and the other claims no party affiliation. If Peltola were to get the plurality but not the majority and the second choices on the minority candidate’s ballots are heavily for the Republican Sullivan, he could win even though coming in second on the initial count. If, however, Sullivan is leading without a majority on the initial count, but lost because the second choices favored Peltola, I predict that someone will be baselessly contending that Alaska was a stolen election. Trump has already labeled Alaska’s system as “stupid.”

There are several reasons given for ranked choice voting. It is said that it reduces mudslinging; a candidate does not want to alienate an opponent’s supporters, hoping to get second place choices. This deters ad hominem attacks and forces a focus on the issues. Also ranking assures that we don’t elect candidates who are opposed by a majority of the electorate. Sometimes, we elect a candidate with a plurality because there are enough third-party votes to prevent a majority. However, the third-party voters might have preferred the losing candidate to the winning one. In that case, the winner, was actually opposed by a majority. Finally, ranked choice voting eliminates a run-off election, which is costly, and in which turnout is often less than in a regular, general election.

Although ranked-choice voting is used in Alaska, it is not universally loved. It was adopted in 2020 in a statewide referendum with a bare 50.55% of the voters approving. A 2024 attempt to repeal the system was defeated by an even tinier margin with 50.12% voting to retain it. Another attempt to repeal Alaska’s ranked-choice voting is on the ballot in November.