I’ve written before about Alaska’s new Final Four electoral system (a universal primary from which four candidates advance, with the general election employing ranked choice voting). The issue is likely to stay in the news since Nevada and perhaps other states may follow with their own versions, mostly couched as Final Five rather than Four.

Now R Street Institute fellow Ryan Williamson has written an evaluation of how the Alaska plan worked in its trial run last year. Summary: it worked well.

“A review of initial evidence found that races in the state became more civil and competitive overall,” writes Williamson. Although the procedural change was a big one, it “caused little disruption in the composition of government.…Importantly, Alaskans viewed the process favorably, largely describing it as ‘simple’ despite some arguments to the contrary.”

A key aim of the reforms was to increase electoral competition, and that appears to have happened. In particular, fewer candidates ran uncontested, and fewer races were effectively decided in low‐​turnout party primaries in which only 10–20 percent of a district’s voters might participate. “60 percent of Alaskans reported that the 2022 elections were more competitive than other recent elections.” While the high‐​profile and lively races for U.S. Senate and House drew most national attention, statehouse races may in some ways be the more telling measure: “Compared with the previous five election cycles, 2022 marks the highest level of competition for Alaska state legislative seats.” Even so, incumbents in general did fine. And contrary to chatter about a supposed scheme to “rig elections” in Democrats’ favor, “Alaskan Republicans generally fared well with the top‐​four approach.…The evidence shows that Republicans saw no change in their ability to translate their support into seats in the state legislature.”

While Alaska Republicans had one of their best statehouse showings in years, there are some indications that Final Four may have worked to the advantage of individual candidates with centrist or crossover appeal, as compared with favorites of the party base. I’ve cautioned before that “it isn’t just centrist or technocratic politicians who may be skilled at winning support from voters not registered with their own party—figures as diverse as Donald Trump, Bernie Sanders, and Ronald Reagan have all been known for that.” Still, one of the key objectives of Final Four/​Final Five plans is to give independent and ticket‐​splitting voters an electoral voice fully equal to that of party stalwarts, in the expectation that their voices will make a difference one way or another. And Williamson’s preliminary report suggests that that’s exactly what happened in Alaska.