A recent New York Times article presents evidence that Alaska Democrats sought to confuse voters in that state's 2026 Senate election by introducing a second candidate with a name very similar to that of the Republican incumbent, thereby potentially siphoning off some of his voters.
asserted
Democrats → present → voters
The incumbent senator is named Dan S. Sullivan, while the other candidate is Dan J. Sullivan.
asserted
candidate → name → ?
As the Times reports, some of the facts here are disputable, and it is not entirely clear whether Democratic candidate Mary Peltola knew about this effort or approved of it.
asserted
Peltola → report → it
But it seems likely that at least some of her staffers and other Democratic operatives were involved.
asserted
some → seem → staffers
Before going further, I should emphasize that this effort is worthy of condemnation.
asserted
effort → go → condemnation
Trying to confuse voters into voting for the "wrong" candidate in this way is not how democratic political participation should work.
asserted
participation → try → way
And the fact that other politicians (including Republicans) engage in various electoral "dirty tricks" doesn't justify this one.
asserted
politicians → include → one
Elsewhere, I have explained why these kinds of actions are not illegal, and why the Trump administration's lawsuit seeking to block certification of the Alaska Senate result deserves to fail.
asserted
lawsuit → explain → result
I stand by that conclusion.
asserted
I → stand → conclusion
Legal scholar Rick Hasen (a leading election law expert) has a helpful recent post explaining why the New York Times revelations do not change anything from a legal point of view.
asserted
revelations → lead → view
But the fact that this scheme is legal doesn't make it right.
asserted
it → make → ?
That said, it is important to keep this issue in proper perspective, and especially to recognize that many other types of lies and efforts to exploit voter ignorance are much worse.
asserted
types → say → ignorance
Confusion caused by candidates with similar names is relatively rare, and it is difficult to find examples where it affected more than a small fraction of voters.
asserted
it → cause → voters
But I welcome correction on that latter point.
asserted
I → welcome → point
In the first round of the ranked-choice voting election (which narrows down the candidates to the top 4), only 2.5% of voters picked Dan L. Sullivan.
asserted
% → rank → Sullivan
Peltola led the incumbent senator by a much larger margin than that (8.1 points).
asserted
Peltola → lead → that
Even if every single person who voted for Dan L. did so because of confusion (which is improbable), that's unlikely to change the result.
asserted
that → vote → result
Moreover, the Alaska ranked-choice voting system reduces the risk of error.
asserted
system → rank → error
Some of those who vote for the "wrong" Dan Sullivan might rank the "right" one second.
uncertain
who → vote → right
After the former gets eliminated, those votes get transferred to the latter.
asserted
votes → eliminate → latter
On top of that, as Michael Dorf points out, the Alaska ballot explicit indicates that Dan S. Sullivan is the "incumbent."
asserted
Sullivan → point → that
That further reduces any potential confusion.
asserted
That → reduce → confusion
The widespread publicity this issue has gotten over the last few weeks further reduces the risk of error.
asserted
issue → get → error
Many voters have probably now heard about the two Dan Sullivans and will be on guard against the problem.
asserted
voters → hear → problem
It is still theoretically possible that confusion between the two Sullivans will end up having a decisive impact on the election.
asserted
confusion → end → election
Some people who voted for Dan L. might not rank the other Sullivan second, or might misunderstand how the RCV system works.
uncertain
system → vote → Sullivan
And some voters might (understandably) not be very careful about how they mark their ballots, thereby making a mistake despite the various safeguards against it.
uncertain
they → mark → it
Still, it seems highly unlikely that such errors will have a decisive impact on the outcome.
asserted
errors → seem → outcome
Elections where it makes a decisive difference are likely to be extremely rare, at worst.
asserted
it → make → difference
By contrast, candidate lying about policy issues and exploitation of voter ignorance about them is a veritable mountain.
asserted
candidate → lie → them
I summarized some of the relevant evidence in an earlier post about the Alaska controversy:
asserted
I → summarize → controversy
Donald Trump is a particularly egregious example, going all the way back to his first campaign in 2016, and more recently with his lies about the 2020 election and other issues.
asserted
Trump → go → election
But more conventional politicians also often resort to lies and deception, even if not to the same degree.
asserted
politicians → resort → degree
President Obama, for example, famously lied when he claimed that, under the Affordable Care Act, "if you like your health care plan, you can keep it."
asserted
you → lie → it
That deception won the 2013 Politifact Lie of the Year award.
asserted
deception → win → award
But it still helped Obama get reelected in 2012.
asserted
Obama → help → 2012
I am not sure exploiting voter confusion about names is any worse than exploiting their ignorance about policy issues like crime, immigration, and health care….
asserted
exploiting → exploit → crime
Ultimately, both exploitation of voter confusion about names and other deceptions used in campaigns seek to exploit widespread voter ignorance.
asserted
exploitation → use → ignorance
Because of the combination of "rational ignorance" (lack of incentive to seek out political information) and "rational irrationality" (lack of incentive to engage in unbiased evaluation), most voters know little about government and public policy, and often do a poor job of evaluating the information they do know.
asserted
they → seek → information
This makes them vulnerable to deception and manipulation, and incentivizes politicians to lie and otherwise distort the truth.
asserted
them → make → truth
…and 27 more, not listed.
The Aporia
