Home | About | Donate

'Powerful Moment': State Supreme Court Ruling Will Likely Make Maine First in US History to Use Ranked-Choice in Presidential Election

Originally published at http://www.commondreams.org/news/2020/09/22/powerful-moment-state-supreme-court-ruling-will-likely-make-maine-first-us-history



added text

It’s never too late for knowledge. Maine just became a Petri dish for the rest of us. It may or may not inform us of much, but it might.

Will it change the results of this election? No. Will it change the results of future elections there and elsewhere? Probably.


I was also referring to how President’s and our legslative activities are now limited to those consistent with GATS and similar agreements ONLY.


This is what they are using the “good cop-bad cop” mechanism to hide.

Well, of course you were! That’s what we all expect from you.

Fortunately, I wasn’t so constrained.


Thats what it says. Actually, all levels of government are constrained. There is nothing else like it.


From what Ive heard, TISA is worse. What do we vote for if we cant actually change anything except the farcical.

Dear Elizabeth Warren, my surrendering personal top ranked choice to top the Dem ticket running with Indie caucusing with DNC Bernie for VP as life insurance from the Corporate Caliphate snipers or Russkie or Brit poisoners.

Prof Dr Senator Warren likely doesn’t feel free to say out loud what anyone familiar with our Founding Fathers’ concerns about the cartel dynamics of political parties knows from experience. Ranked choice voting blows those Duopoly dynamics right out of the water.

We still need to take back the public’s airwaves and cyber-space band spectrum from the Pay2Play crowd so that our representatives’ policies and positions can be evaluated without having to lure big bucks to gain access to broadcast or widest possible net-cast. There are in fact many more things on our Participatory Democracy or less supine Republic’s to-do list;

Like interesting the other 50 or so voting states, imperial territories, Samoa and Guam to join us in considering and publicly debating Ranked Choice Voting. If we still had an Educational TV Network (CPB put it out of Public Interest business under LBJ in 1967) it would be easier to educate our citizens and voters.

The corporate caliphate is none too eager for that to happen. The Feudal Lords of High Finance\Tech\TeleComm\Public Health & Life Sciences, Big Ag, Big Labor and Big Pharma also will not be hospitable amid their principle of concision 7 minutes between commercial or underwriting interruptions on the thousands of U.S. broadcast outlets owned by a handful of Feudal Lords of TeleComm to carry any complex messages that might give U.S. any ideas about putting our faith in anything other than Status Quo Joe and Daddy or Mummy Warbucks…

A major appreciative elbow-bump to the League of Women Voters in Maine and the state that has absorbed the worst that Third World impoverishment has had to offer in the 21st Century (and most of the 20th Century too). Don’t be fooled by all the rich Establishment elites in their summer homes on the Maine coast or visiting the House of Bush in Kennebunkport. Maine’s brain drain has been massive, like Israel or Ireland’s as the Neo-Liberal E-CON’d seek greater opportunities to test the GREED IS GOOD waters elsewhere in the Neo-Liberal E-CON’d world of concentrating wealth economics…

Mitch Ritter\Paradigm Sifters, Code Shifters and Atonement Seekers
Lay-Low Studios, Ore-Wa
Media Discussion List and Looksee

1 Like

The real problem with ranked choice voting is it isn’t friendly to crooks who want to loot the state treasury. No, that’s not an actual problem.

Traditionally the state gets exactly two parties and everybody else is called a spoiler. In that case, the grafter’s solution is to buy off both parties and each party will take care of any malingerers who don’t get in line.

Now, if you really want to get something that has worked even better, have ranked choice voting for multiple legislative offices. If you’re part of a 20% minority and fifteen candidates are running for five legislative seats or city council seats, you’ll probably get the best one of about three candidates that cater to your minority. This has done wonders for the Cambridge, Massachusetts City Council for the past 80 years.

This kind of voting worked wonders in many American cities, until the wealthy crooks aligned themselves with the racists in city after city and hammered away with fear and money (Black people sitting right there on the City Council with our White city council members!!!) until the voters caved to their fears and went back to the old crook-friendly system again and again.

1 Like

Good for Maine. I luv it.
Too bad it may be too late. If Trump wins, this wont matter going forward

You’re being a Debbie Downer again Phred.


Stay close man. The window’s open and there’s a lovely ledge out there…

1 Like

The correct answer is probably not for president but it’s possible. And probably not for Senate but again possible.

Maine splits its 4 EV into 3 groups (I’m sure you know all this - but for anybody else’s benefit): 2 EV statewide, 1 EV in District 1, and 1 EV in District 2. Apparently according to ~https://www.270towin.com/, though the whole state and District 1 are not considered swing, District 2 is. This is only 1 EV but could technically mean the difference between losing and tying (House of Reps decide) or tying and winning. I don’t know how popular the other candidates are besides the R, D, and Lisa Savage, but it is possible that RCV could help Trump or Collins win I suppose (though I think it is more commonly expected it will help Biden and Gideon).

So I assume they have to do the actual Instant Runoff Voting 3 times, once for all the ballots, and the other 2 after splitting the ballots into disticts. But for Senate this will not apply and it is only one IRV count.


For the curious: Where ‘ranked choice’ is used around the world (including pockets in the ‘World’s Greatest Democracy’).


Next step for the ‘WGD’ - make it that if you move house to the other side of the street, that you may not be confronted with a completely different electoral system than the one you previously have been familiar with.

Meanwhile: Statuary, independent non-partisan electoral authorities might just be a step too far to expect as yet. (There is a heap of impacted ‘WGD’ baloney stuck in the national gut yet to be eliminated.)

Touchy, touchy. Man.

1 Like

That is one way to look at it. Maine turned to ranked voting after election misfires in two successive races for Governor. That can be viewed as closing the barn door after the horses have escaped, but a more realistic view is that there really are more horses in future elections.

Ranked voting is not the best alternative to plurality voting (take a look on OpEdNews for a series on Ranked Voting) but it is an improvement over plurality voting. Until we do something about the Electoral College, however, it does not seem that changing the voting system in a small state will do much.

Still, other states should follow Maine in experimenting with better voting systems. It would be hard to find a worse system than plurality voting.

1 Like

Plurality voting has long been recognized as a flawed voting system whenever there are more than just two candidates.

Ranked Choice Voting (more appropriately called instant-runoff voting) works to simulate a series of plurality voting elections with each iteration used to eliminate a single candidate. So, starting with perhaps ten candidates, each iteration until the very last is a flawed election - but that last one is not flawed when viewed alone. But the overall election remains potentially very flawed. That is the fundamental problem with Ranked voting.

There are better systems such as Approval Voting. My own preference is for Balanced Approval Voting. You can look these up at OpEdNews.

I am sure they will do their best, though (to find a worse system) because they have to, having to hide how trade agreements prevent anything from getting done.

What do you think of this document from your own state’s recent history? This documents the process how they found out that their state plan “Dirigio Health” to make healthcare available to poorer Maineiacs (??) was nonconforming with the treaty.

It basically makes state healthcare plans that might offer a better deal than insurance companies FTA illegal. (unless the scope is so limited that they would never draw customers away from commercial entities) They also were surprised.

Now the document has vanished from your state’s web site. They are trying to hide this fact because healthcare hope is … well. You likely know it as well as I do.


Read it! Then let me know what you think.

I tell the whole story here: I’m sorry about the typos. This is just exhausting.


Ah yes, the progressive penchant for finding the negative in every positive step forward. No wonder the cohesive republicans have gained 1000 seats in states across the country. I understand that RCV is no panacea for the corruption in our political system, but can we not enjoy for one fucking second a small step in the right direction? We’ve been trying for several years now to get RCV and while the majority of Mainers wanted it, the republicans managed to keep it from happening at the presidential level of voting until now. Also, this demonstrates the importance of balance on the state SC, which is salient considering RBG’s vacancy on SCOTUS.


I am a Democrat. I am just trying to explain why we’re being prevented from making progress on any of dozens of the core issues we in the Democratic party still sometimes profess to be motivated by. Its trade agreements that basically lock out all progress and implement a very regressive war on the key elements thatmake up what we see as progress, substituting a vast theft ofpolicyspace giving all policy to multinational corporations as their property, a very corporate centric, evil flavor of globalization that tries to lock in the worst kinds of cprporate practices, in its place,

We’re blocked from making progress by treaties that are implementing “progressive liberalization” a noose like limiting of the right to regulate. In particular, the middle class is being targeted in order to make it possible to channel that wealthy to propping up friendly third world dictatorships.

basically, the argument is “Its Their Turn” . the middle class in the US is framed as forcing the FTA noncompliant protectionist measures that are blocking the long planned services liberalization, large scale job outsourcing.

Its represented as helping the poor but the people its actually helping are the rich who oppress the poor in these often quite repressive countries. Its squeezing out immigration in favor of corporate managed system thats been compared to indentured servitude, its frequently called modern slavery.

Maine has a real progressive on the ballot for Collin’s Senate seat – a Green Party affiliated independent (she’s running as an independent, not a Green) - Lisa Savage. She’s the only candidate on the ballot supporting Medicare For ALL, a Green New Deal, a more non-interventionist foreign policy, so on. Plus she’s not taking corporate monies.

So people supporting these issues have no excuses for not picking the better candidate in that race – and since the corporate Dem doesn’t support Medicare For ALL et al.

But I suspect it’s going to take voters some practice before they fully understand how to use RCV. I say this as someone who has voted in elections that were only about a corporate free progressive against the corporate Dem, and in a general - and the voters, like shepple, were so conditioned, that they voted for the corporate Dem anyway. And even though they’ve been using this excuse for decades, now (i.e. they have to vote for them bc they are the lesser evil vs greater evil).

That being said, we need to get RCV in other states - especially the swing states.

RCV can be a real game-changer, but people have to learn to use it, too.

Other than that, IMO, people should start voting for the candidates they prefer, regardless - even in swing states. And you’re worried about that, well, work even harder for RCV. Because I, as a voter, am not waiting for it to “happen,” and I suspect more and more voters are feeling more and more like me.

1 Like