Pandering to the center is actually a viable strategy in the race to serve out Rep. Don Young's term in the US House.

For a country bogged down by political polarization, the run-up to Alaska’s first ranked choice election might seem refreshing: a Democrat talking openly about family ties to a Republican Congressman; a Republican giving shout-outs to union members; and voters with the power to rank candidates from the opposing party.

In Alaska’s special election to serve out the term of late US House Representative Don Young, cross-party outreach has clear benefits for both voters and candidates. The upsides of weighing both sides may not exist in every ranked choice election, but they do in this one. The two Republicans and one Democrat in the race all have paths to victory made all the more viable by courting voters from both parties. And voters have the opportunity to rank all three candidates, meaning they shouldn’t immediately write off candidates from the opposing side.

Candidate and voter behavior in Alaska so far bolsters the theory that ranked choice voting, at least in certain elections, can to some degree counter polarization. If applied more widely, could ranked choice voting be part of a cure for hyper partisanship? If so, more moderate cohorts of lawmakers might make more progress on issues voters care about, like reducing the high cost of health care and improving educational opportunities.

This article looks at the following: Where is there room for bipartisan behavior in Alaska’s special general election for US House? Does it actually make sense for voters? How are Republicans Nick Begich and Sarah Palin, and Democrat Mary Peltola courting voters from the other side? And what could it all imply for American democracy?

For Democratic voters, ranking a Republican second isn’t a terrible idea

In ranked choice voting, voters rank candidates from most- to least-favorite. In Round 1, the candidate with the most first-place votes wins. If no one wins outright by securing a majority of first-place votes, the last-place candidate exits the race and a new round begins. In Round 2, the second-place votes from the ballots of the candidate defeated in Round 1 get redistributed among the remaining candidates. The process continues until a candidate secures a majority of the votes.

A ranked ballot affords voters more power to influence the results than they would in the typical American election, where each voter chooses just one candidate and the candidate with the most votes wins. The option to rank expands voting power. Even if your favorite candidate loses, your next-favorite candidate can get your vote.

And yet, some Alaska progressives are talking about voting for the lone Democrat only and not ranking either of the two Republicans. Viewed one way, that strategy makes sense, at least for the House special election.

Here’s why: The Democrat, Peltola, likely will secure about 40 percent of first round votes, enough to send her to Round 2. The two Republican candidates, Begich and Palin, will split the remaining 60 percent. That means either Begich or Palin will leave the field in Round 1. The other will advance with Peltola to Round 2.

Here’s where ranked choice voting kicks in. The voters who chose the Round 1 loser as their No. 1 and ranked another candidate second will remain in the game. In fact, their second-choice votes will decide the election. In this scenario, where Peltola advances to Round 2, her supporters’ second choices won’t matter. With three candidates in the race, the election will end in Round 2.

But if Peltola somehow loses in the first round, those of her supporters who failed to rank a second candidate will have forfeited a plum chance to influence the election. Ranking Peltola first and a Republican second would NOT allow the Republican to beat Peltola as long as she’s still in the race.

Again, Peltola supporters lose nothing by ranking a Republican second. But if she’s out in Round 1, they’ll h...