Maine is on the verge of making history as it appears the state's new ranked choice voting system—in use this year for the first time—will be needed in order to determine the ultimate winner of a too-close-to-call race for the U.S. House.
If the 1% isn’t careful, actual small-d democracy might suddenly break out.
Geez! And I always thought that “RANK CHOICE voting” meant either selecting a Rethug or a Damnocrat.
IMHO, the electoral college should be discarded and RCV used in ALL races from dogcatcher & school board through all state and national offices including the senate and presiduncy. One major improvement is needed, however — add “None of the Above” as a choice in ALL races, and if “None of the Above” gets the most votes then that part of the election must be done over, with NONE of the original (rejected) candidates eligible to run a second time.
I am quite sure that if the 2016 presiduncial election could be re-done with “None of the Above” as an option, voter turnout would be close to 100% and “None of the Above” would get 60% or more of the total.
Imagine what it would do for parties like Working Families and the Green Party. I’d imagine it would also encourage more refined interest collaborations and diversity because people have a greater chance of casting off the systemic suppression from Citizens United.
Seems like there wouldn’t be a need for primaries. What’s that part of the Maine story?
Now we are getting into the area of innovation. You can start to look at things like run off elections, and multiple party registration without impossible hoops to jump through.
HI UncleFester: “None of the above,” would be a very popular choice. : )
Our “democracy” has a deep aversion to anything that makes too much sense
A single-payer healthcare system is not a national health service, but I still support a single-payer system. Medicare 4 ALL is not a single-payer system, but I still support Medicare 4 ALL. RCV-IRV in single member districts is not proportional representation, but I still support IRV.
I would be ecstatic to discard the current Senate and go with 100 people elected at large over the US with proportional representation. That is a tough slog though. And the idea of running some large states (like my state of CA) with proportional representation for the House member while smaller states can’t do that always seemed like a strange solution. Probably better to have a few states go first with one of the state government bodies be elected proportionately. Maybe it will be Maine as they are way more evolved on this than my stupid governor (until next year - I have no idea of Newsom will be as irritating on this issue).
That is bad reporting - it has nothing to do with numbers being ‘close’ (e.g. 46 to 45.9) all that matters is if the winner is under 50%. If among the 4 people running it had been 49, 17, 17, 17 it would still require IRV to be implemented (and possibly the one with 49 would still lose). This is better explained later in the article, but still, why use a quote from a source that is misleading?