Chapter 10 Case Study: Alaska Shows Another Way: Coalition Governments and Primary Reform

Political scientist E. E. Schattschneider famously wrote that “modern democracy is unthinkable save in terms of the parties.”^[1] With that, he pointed to the essential roles political parties play in connecting citizens with their government. Two features often attributed as exclusive to political parties are that they (1) nominate candidates for office and (2) organize the government.

Political parties certainly organize state legislatures. More than 82 percent of Americans live in the forty states that are currently governed by a one-party trifecta, where one party controls both chambers of the state legislature and the governorship.^[2] While a high figure, one-party rule is the norm more often than not at the state level.^[3] After the 2024 elections, twenty-three states are controlled by the Republican Party, and fifteen states are controlled by the Democratic Party. Of the thirteen states with divided government, Alaska stands out for its ability to have functioning political parties work together.

After the 2022 elections, seventeen of Alaska’s twenty state senators, both Republicans and Democrats, forged a bipartisan pact to govern together, at the expense of the ideological extremes within both parties.^[4] Members of both parties assumed leadership positions and worked together to build consensus and moderation. This is not the first time Alaska has experimented with a coalition government, having done so previously from 2007 to 2012.

This sort of coalition is frequently used in other countries with multiple political parties when no single party has a majority on their own. In Alaska, however, there is a majority of Republicans—they are just willing to work with the other party in the interests of their state even if that is not what the more extreme supporters of each party would prefer.

Take Cathy Giessel, for example. She was a Republican state legislator who frequently worked with Democrats. Her reward was to lose a 2020 primary to a far-right challenger who claimed that she lost sight of “what her job should be as a Republican senator in a Republican state with Republican majorities in the House and Senate and a Republican governor.”^[5]

However, Alaska made two important changes to how elections are conducted in their state by passing Ballot Measure 2 in the 2020 election.^[6] First, they switched from their previously used party primary system to a top-four model, where all the candidates (regardless of party) are placed on the same ballot, and the top four vote-getters move to the general election.^[7] Second, the state switched to a ranked-choice voting system. Now rather than casting a single vote for their preferred candidates, voters get to rank all the candidates. This sort of “instant runoff voting” allows voters to cast their initial vote for their preferred candidate—even if they feel like that candidate has a minimal chance of winning. Votes for marginal candidates get redistributed so that, in theory, the ultimate winner is one that a majority of voters are comfortable with—not just a plurality. Ballot Measure 2 passed with 50.55 percent of the vote, earning just less than four thousand more votes than the opposition.

Many advocates argue that these reforms weaken the stranglehold the two parties have on elections and government. By changing the electoral incentives and promoting greater voter participation, politicians can be rewarded for listening to moderation and all their constituents—not just the base of their party.^[8]

Giessel agrees, as she was elected anew in 2022 after her two-year absence and now serves as the majority leader. She remarked, “You know, what I learned from that two-year period was that nothing gets done unless you work with everyone.”^[9]

Critical Thinking Questions

Who should political parties be responsive to most? Their party supporters? Their constituents? The greater good?

How might the incentives politicians face to get elected and reelected shape their behavior in office?

What reforms would you support to promote bipartisan cooperation?

What institutional features, rules, and mechanisms do we use in our democratic system that maintain a two-party structure? Would it be beneficial or detrimental for good representation if these were abolished?

How have the parties changed over time?

Why is it so challenging for third parties to garner support for the candidates and success in outcomes?

When was our last critical realignment? Are we due? What would a realignment in current politics look like?

How would nonpartisan elections be fundamentally different from systems that require candidates to declare party affiliation and educate voters on the basis of that label?