Home | About | Donate

'Sore Loser Loses Again' as Federal Judge Defends Mainers' Right to Ranked Choice Voting by Rejecting Poliquin Lawsuit


#1

'Sore Loser Loses Again' as Federal Judge Defends Mainers' Right to Ranked Choice Voting by Rejecting Poliquin Lawsuit

Julia Conley, staff writer

In the latest rebuke to Rep. Bruce Poliquin's (R-Maine) repeated attempts to hold onto his seat in Maine's 2nd congressional district after losing the midterm election, a federal judge threw out his lawsuit in which the two-term congressman claimed the state's use of ranked choice voting (RCV) was unconstitutional and unfair to voters.


#2

Well done, U.S. District Court Judge Lance Walker. Live long and prosper.


#3

I have my doubts. RCV threatens the existing power structure because it allows third parties to get a toehold in the political process. If Democrats were smart they would embrace it, as it is much more likely to benefit them than Republicans. Republicans, especially in places like Wisconsin, Michigan and North Carolina will fight it like hell.


#5

Don’t let the door hit you on the way out you sad little puppet. You never had the brains to fill a thimble you just used Koch brothers Legislation because you really can not think your way out of a wet paper bag.

You just do not get it Bruce. The people of the state of Maine wrote and passed the RCV law to get rid of scum like you and you take it to court twice? Never fear you were never dear to the people of MAine. Move along scum. Nothing for you here.


#6

What is this country coming to?
Trump appointed this judge and now the judge is not following the Party line!!!
Doesn’t this judge know who signs his paycheck?
Trump is going to have to go ahead and shut down the government until this judge gets back in line.
Next thing you know, other judges will follow suit and start following the law rather than the Party.
Sad.

[this of course is sarcasm]


#7

Congratulations Mainers! And, thank you.


#8

This is District Court - Not the Roberts court. this will get there fast if it becomes popular: They’ll, (Roberts, Kavanaugh, Thomas, Alito, Gorsuch, and quite possibly the others too), definitely Overrule this to preserve the status quo - Themselves. After that state laws will no longer be legally upheld.


#9

The real purpose of this legislation is to eliminate lesser of evils voting, people will vote their actual preference first, and the lesser of evils second. Under this system people like Sanders may have become president instead of Trump, or Clinton.


#10

Maybe. I’d to like to hear the argument Roberts et al use for that. It would take some contortions – not that they aren’t capable of that, but the Constitutional language is pretty clear that the states are in charge of their own elections, subject to the Voting Rights Act or other Congressional Act. Specifically, Article I, Section 4 states:

The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations, except as to the Places of chusing Senators (emphasis added).

I would note that some states (Georgia comes to mind) require a runoff if there is only a plurality in the first round of elections. RCV is not that far removed and, in fact, operates as an instant runoff. They could put in play their own schemes by overruling RCV.

To me the greater problem is the politics of state legislation, not the Supreme Court, but you could be right.


#11

RCV Beats The Sore Loser SOB.


#12

While I hope this will “sweep the nation” there are certainly many reasons to have doubts. Not the least is that the duopoly will fight it tooth and nail - after all, having the ability to choose a alternative to either of them is a radical threat to their monopoly and control. But in the meantime thanks to the voters of Maine for showing a way to challenge these corporate owned behemoths.


#13

Mr. Poliquin and his attorneys believe democracy is illegal.
It is in most of the country after all.


#14

In Michigan, RCV would become the law of the land through a ballot measure.

Republicans couldn’t mess with it much at that point.


#15

Sorry, but given what’s been going on in Michigan, I have to LOL just a little at that statement. Hope you’re right though.


#16

Right on cue, see:

Utah faces lawsuit after overruling voters on medical marijuana — with the help of Mormon church

Can you amend the state constitution by initiative? Maybe that would be the way to go.


#17

See what a ballot might look like in the future.
RCV has been used in Australia since the 1920s. See the results of a recent by-election (special election) for the Australian Federal House of Representatives after the resignation of the sitting member.
https://results.aec.gov.au/22844/Website/HouseDivisionPage-22844-152.htm
Noting the choice of candidates and the fact that winner after the first count trailed by nearly 14% but after all votes were counted and transferred according to the preferences of the voters, finished with over 52% of the vote.


#18

I like idiot’s argument, ‘RCV ain’t fair because I lost!’. It makes me think about people that want free crap, ‘This is a capitalist country, so give me my free shit!’ Republicans are a strange fascist breed. They are losers and yet win more than not. It’s nice to see the Brown Shirts taste a little reality from time to time.


#19

After a ballot measure passes, it can only be changed here with two thirds votes in both houses of the legislature.