2026-08-26T17:01:59.025Z / https://www.cnn.com/2026/08/26/politics/dan-sullivan-alaska-senate-race
共和党竭力想要避免的阿拉斯加局势已然成真：两位丹·沙利文将出现在美国参议院选举的大选选票上。
一位是现任共和党参议员，另一位则是政治素人，共和党担心后者会在这场关乎参议院多数党地位的关键选举中分流现任参议员的选票。
但共和党究竟该有多担忧？
简言之，历史迹象表明这至少会对共和党造成一定伤害——但可能仅在选举势均力敌的情况下才会显现。
而阿拉斯加独特的排名选择投票制度应该会缓解部分潜在影响。
上周全党派初选的最新结果显示，前学校教师丹·J·沙利文获得了2.5%的选票，稳稳跻身前四名，与共和党参议员丹·沙利文（42.6%）和民主党前众议员玛丽·佩尔托拉（48.2%）一同晋级。最后一个晋级名额尚未确定，另外两名候选人各得1.1%的支持率。
如果这是一场普通的大选，且另一位丹·沙利文以独立候选人或第三方候选人身份参选，那么共和党有充分理由感到担忧。在这种情况下，很容易出现大量选民误投给另一位丹·沙利文的情况。
但阿拉斯加的排名选择投票制度允许选民对多名候选人进行排名。因此，只要丹·J·沙利文的选民也将参议员丹·沙利文列为第二选择，且排名在佩尔托拉之前，那么另一位丹·沙利文的选票就会流向现任参议员。
2020年推动阿拉斯加采用排名选择投票制的阿拉斯加律师斯科特·肯德尔本月发表了一篇专栏文章，有力论证了排名选择投票制将削弱另一位丹·沙利文的影响。
这主要是因为，尽管阿拉斯加的制度允许选民对多名候选人排名，但许多选民并不会这么做。
许多选民会“耗尽”选票，即不列出后备选择——要么是故意为之，要么是不熟悉投票流程。这意味着如果他们支持的候选人被淘汰，他们的选票将不会计入最终对决的计票中。
该州有限的排名选择投票历史表明，相当多的选民确实会耗尽选票。还有许多选民不会按逻辑预期的那样为后备选项排名。
最好的例子莫过于该州2024年美国众议院选举。
最初有1.1%的选民支持民主党人埃里克·哈夫纳。当他被淘汰后，人们可能会预期他的选票会流向参选的唯一另一位民主党人佩尔托拉。
但大多数选民并未如此。约三分之一的哈夫纳支持者没有为其他候选人排名，导致选票耗尽。类似比例的选民将佩尔托拉列为第二选择，其余选民则将共和党人尼克·贝吉奇或第三方候选人列为第二选择。
因此，尽管有1.1%的选民投票给哈夫纳，但其中仅有0.4%的选票最终流向了另一位民主党人佩尔托拉。
该州2022年还举行了两场美国众议院选举——一场特别选举和一场常规大选。两场选举中都有佩尔托拉和两位知名共和党人：贝吉奇以及2008年共和党副总统候选人、前州长莎拉·佩林。
在两场选举中，约四分之一的选民最初支持贝吉奇，之后他被淘汰。每次都有超过20%的贝吉奇支持者耗尽选票，而非选择其他候选人。这在两场选举中总计占到了选民总数的5%至6%。
在特别选举中，仅有约一半的贝吉奇支持者将选票转向了另一位共和党人佩林。11月的常规选举中，这一比例达到了三分之二。
当然，部分原因可能在于佩林的争议性极强。也许贝吉奇的支持者根本不想投票给她或佩尔托拉。
但总体而言，在该州2022年和2024年的众议院与参议院选举中，平均有28%的选民在其支持的候选人被淘汰后，没有为后备候选人排名。
其中仅有约一半的选民会将逻辑上最合理的后备候选人列为第二选择——即同党派人士或意识形态上更接近其初始选择的候选人。
因此，如果丹·J·沙利文在11月大选中获得2.5%的选票并被淘汰，我们或许可以预估其中约一半的选票会流向参议员丹·沙利文。
但事情并非如此简单。
仅仅因为在初选中有2.5%的选民投票给另一位丹·沙利文，并不意味着其中许多甚至大多数选民都是误投的共和党人。
毕竟，小众候选人往往能在此类选举中获得1%至2%的选票。有些人只是不想投票给主要候选人。
上周的初选中还有一个真正值得质疑的问题：另一位丹·沙利文的选票是否有很多实际上来自民主党人。
他在佩尔托拉表现出色的地区支持率更高。因此，他2.5%的支持率很可能并非来自共和党人，而是民主党人出于战略投票——即试图让另一位丹·沙利文进入大选，从而 potentially 帮助佩尔托拉。
另一个降低混淆概率的因素是，尽管另一位丹·沙利文登记为共和党人，但他在初选选票上并未以共和党候选人身份出现。假设大选时也是如此，那么选民要搞混两人，就不仅要勾选丹·J·沙利文，还要跳过唯一一位以共和党身份参选的丹·沙利文。
与此同时，11月大选可能会有更多休闲选民，他们更有可能搞混两位候选人。
换言之，很难预测11月的选举结果会如何。
共和党花更多时间向选民解释他与现任参议员的区别，加上初选时为战略投票支持另一位丹·沙利文的佩尔托拉支持者在大转而支持她，另一位丹·沙利文的得票率很有可能下降。
但也有可能出现这样的情况：少数但数量可观的选民在选票上看到“小丹尼尔·J·沙利文”，误以为他就是现任参议员，投完票就完事了——在一场势均力敌（即得票差距远小于1%）的选举中，这种情况可能会影响结果。
考虑到阿拉斯加的参议院选举可能是决定参议院多数党地位的关键摇摆选区，这对全国共和党来说将是非常糟糕的局面。
与此同时，还要关注从全党派初选中脱颖而出的第四名候选人。共和党人杰拉尔德·海克斯 overnight 超过民主党人大卫·莱斯利，升至第四位。
如果最终晋级的是另一位丹·沙利文和另一位共和党人，那么在势均力敌的选举中，这一变量的影响会更大。
How worried should the GOP be about two Dan Sullivans on the ballot in Alaska?
2026-08-26T17:01:59.025Z / https://www.cnn.com/2026/08/26/politics/dan-sullivan-alaska-senate-race
The situation that Republicans strove to avoid in Alaska has come to pass: Two Dan Sullivans will appear on the general election ballot for US Senate.
One is an incumbent GOP senator, and the other is a political unknown that the party fears will siphon votes from the senator in a key race for the Senate majority.
But how worried should the GOP be?
In short, history suggests this could hurt the party at least somewhat — but likely only in a very close race.
And Alaska’s unusual ranked-choice system should mitigate some of the potential impact.
Newly reported results in last week’s all-party primary show Dan J. Sullivan, a former school teacher, taking 2.5% of the vote and resting firmly inside the top four alongside GOP Sen. Dan Sullivan (42.6%) and Democratic former Rep. Mary Peltola (48.2%). The last spot is to be determined, with two other candidates at 1.1%.
Republicans would have plenty to fear if this were a normal general election and the other Dan Sullivan appeared on the ballot as an independent or third-party candidate. In that case, it’s easy to see a fair number of voters inadvertently voting for the wrong Dan Sullivan.
But Alaska’s ranked-choice system allows voters to rank multiple candidates. So as long as Dan J. Sullivan’s voters also rank Sen. Dan Sullivan — and rank him ahead of Peltola — the other Dan Sullivan’s votes would filter down to the senator.
Scott Kendall, an Alaska lawyer who spearheaded the state’s adoption of ranked-choice voting in 2020, wrote an op-ed this month making a compelling case that ranked-choice voting will blunt the impact of the other Dan Sullivan.
That’s mainly because while Alaska’s system allows voters to rank multiple candidates, many voters don’t do that.
Many voters will “exhaust” their ballots by not listing backup options — either deliberately or because they are unfamiliar with the process — meaning if their chosen candidate is eliminated, their ballot doesn’t count toward the final matchup.
The state’s limited history with ranked-choice voting suggests a fair number of these voters do exhaust their ballots. And many others don’t rank the backup options that might be logically expected.
Perhaps the best example is the state’s 2024 US House race.
Initially, 1.1% of voters picked Democrat Eric Hafner. When he was eliminated, you might have expected his votes to filter down to the only other Democrat on the ballot, Peltola.
But that’s not what happened with most of them. About one-third of Hafner’s supporters didn’t rank another candidate and exhausted their ballots. A similar proportion ranked Peltola next, and the rest ranked either Republican Nick Begich or a third-party candidate next.
So while 1.1% voted for Hafner, just 0.4% worth of that filtered down to the other Democrat, Peltola.
The state also held two US House races in 2022 — a special election and then the general election. Both featured Peltola and a pair of high-profile Republicans: Begich and former Gov. Sarah Palin, the GOP’s 2008 vice presidential nominee.
In both races, around one-quarter of voters initially backed Begich before he was eliminated. And each time, more than 20% of Begich’s voters exhausted their ballots rather than pick an alternative. That amounted to 5-6% of voters overall in both races.
In the special election, only about half of Begich’s voters filtered down to the other Republican, Palin. In November, two-thirds did.
Part of the reason for that, of course, could be how polarizing Palin was. Perhaps Begich’s voters just didn’t want to vote for her or Peltola.
But all told, in the state’s 2022 and 2024 elections for US House and Senate, an average of 28% of a candidate’s voters didn’t rank a backup when that candidate was eliminated.
And only about half of them ranked the candidate you’d most logically expect as a backup — i.e. someone from the same party or someone ideologically closer to their initial choice.
So if Dan J. Sullivan got 2.5% of the vote in November and was eliminated, you might wager about half of that would filter down to Sen. Dan Sullivan.
But it’s not quite so simple.
Just because 2.5% voted for the other Dan Sullivan in the primary doesn’t mean many or even most of them were Republicans who did so mistakenly.
After all, minor candidates do tend to get 1% or 2% of the vote here and there. Some people just don’t want to vote for the major candidates.
There is also a real question from last week’s primary about whether many of the other Dan Sullivan’s votes actually came from Democrats.
He tended to do better in areas where Peltola also did well. So it seems possible that much of his 2.5% vote share was not Republicans, but rather Democrats voting strategically — i.e. trying to get the other Dan Sullivan into the general election to potentially help Peltola.
The confusion factor is also likely reduced by the fact that the other Dan Sullivan, despite being a registered Republican, didn’t appear on the primary ballot as a Republican. Assuming that’s also the case in November, for voters to mix this up, they’d not just have to pick Dan J. Sullivan, but skip over the only Dan Sullivan who is listed as a Republican.
At the same time, the November general election could feature more casual voters who are more likely to get confused.
In other words, it’s difficult to say how this will shake out in November.
It seems quite possible that the other Dan Sullivan’s vote share will drop, after Republicans spend more time educating voters about the differences between him and the senator, and perhaps as Peltola supporters who strategically voted for the other Dan Sullivan in the primary back her in November.
But it’s also possible that a small but significant handful of voters will see “Daniel J. Sullivan Jr.” on their ballot, vote for him thinking he’s the senator, and be done with it — in a way that could matter in a very close (read: decided by considerably less than 1%) race.
And that would be very bad for the national GOP, given Alaska could be the pivotal race for the Senate majority.
In the meantime, also keep an eye on whoever becomes the fourth candidate to emerge from the all-party primary. Republican Gerald Heikes passed Democrat David Leslie overnight for the No. 4 slot.
If it’s the other Dan Sullivan and another Republican on the ballot, this variable looms larger in a close race.
发表回复