Maine Will Be The First-Ever State To Use Ranked-Choice Voting For A Presidential Election

[JonLP24]

Maine will officially become the first-ever state to use ranked-choice voting for a presidential election, the state’s Supreme Court ruled Tuesday, allowing voters to rank each presidential candidate in order of preference for the November election.



KEY FACTS
Voters will now be able to rank all five presidential candidates that will appear on the ballot there in terms of preference, which will include President Donald Trump (R), Democrat Joe Biden, Libertarian Jo Jorgensen, Green Howard Hawkins and Rocky De La Fuente, of the Alliance Party.

The system will also be in place for the first time ever in a U.S. Senate race, where incumbent Republican Susan Collins faces Democrat Sara Gideon, along with two other candidates.

The system is also called “instant run-off voting,” because it only goes into effect if one candidate isn’t the top pick on more than 50% of ballots.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/nicholasreimann/2020/09/08/maine-will-be-the-first-ever-state-to-use-ranked-choice-voting-for-a-presidential-election/amp/

[Silent3]

1. I'd love to see IRV go national! n/t

It does so much to stop "spoilers" from fucking things up.

I'll bet LePage becoming governor when a clear majority didn't want him was a big motivation for this in Maine.

[OAITW r.2.0]

9. It was, believe me. nt

[llmart]

2. If I lived in Maine...

I would rank DJT a "6" on my ballot.

[Yavin4]

80. 6? That high?

I would have to consult with some MIT math wizards to find the lowest possible number.

[Ms. Toad]

3. Excellent!

[jalan48]

4. Great! Go Maine!

[jpak]

6. Dirigo

[jalan48]

8. Travelled through Maine years ago-took the ferry from Bah Habah to Yarmouth. I met some great folks.

[mitch96]

5. This way of voting makes SO much sense that the repukes will try to block it... nt

[lame54]

92. No...

I don't know who those other people are
Other than putting Trump dead last how could I possibly rank them

[Trumpocalypse]

7. That's bad for Democrats

It will give many an excuse to vote third party and then the losers can question the legitimacy of the winner if they don’t get 50%.

[StClone]

10. I assume it will. And by the time that is figured out

The Cons will have another majority and a couple more the-devil-may-care SCOTUS picks.

[Trumpocalypse]

11. Long term it could really weaken the party

I don’t understand why some are foolishly celebrating it.

[JonLP24]

14. I think negative partisanship is hurting the country

Which is my #1 reason for supporting IRV.

[Trumpocalypse]

17. So supporting the Democratic Party is hurting the country?

Pleas explain.

[JonLP24]

20. I'm talking about the negative partisanship

The supporting a party because you hate the other party more line of thinking. This also impacts the Republicans who don't like Trump but hate Democrats more.

[Trumpocalypse]

24. So opposing the Republican Party is hurting the country?

So does DU a site dedicated to supporting the Democratic Party and opposing the Republican Party hurt the country?

[muriel_volestrangler]

84. I think what hurts DU is asserting, without explanation, that "this hurts the Democrats"

and then implying that anyone who disagrees with you about your bald assertion is questioning whether "supporting the Democratic Party is hurting the country" or "opposing the Republican Party is hurting the country".

Other Democrats think that ranked voting better reflects the will of the people, and therefore is democratic. This is entirely consistent with the Democratic Party aims.

[Trumpocalypse]

88. I think it hurts DU

When people try to shut down an opinion they don’t agree with by attacking the poster rather than addressing the issue.

And any system that give people an option to support another party rather the Democratic Party by its very nature hurts the Democratic Party.

[jpak]

15. Why are Maine Republicans trying to overturn RCV?

Do tell

[Trumpocalypse]

18. No idea

But it doesn’t help the Democratic Party.

[jpak]

19. Yes it does and that is why the gop opposes it

PS

I live in Maine.

[Trumpocalypse]

22. Just saying yes it does

Doesn’t prove that it will.

[jpak]

25. It already has. Look up Jared Golden

Buy a clue - lol

[Trumpocalypse]

28. One race, big deal

Still doesn’t prove anything. Long term it won’t strengthen the Democratic Party.

[jpak]

30. It proves you are wrong

Give it up

Lol

[Trumpocalypse]

32. No it proves in one race it benefited

the Democratic candidate. It doesn’t prove anything regarding the long term impact.

[jpak]

34. And your data are what?

Nothing

You fool no one.

Lol

[Trumpocalypse]

36. My data is other countries

that have a many parties. In those countries the major parties have been weakened because there are so many smaller parties.

[jpak]

38. Which of those countries use RCV?

Russia ?

Lol

[Trumpocalypse]

39. Anything that helps other parties

hurts the Democratic Party.

[jpak]

40. It doesn't help other parties

Nope

Give it up

Lol

[Trumpocalypse]

41. Yes it does

It gives people an excuse to support other parties.

And consider this scenario. Trump gets 45% of the vote and Biden gets 44% but most third party candidate voters had Biden as their second choice so Biden you. Trump will go to the Supreme Court to overturn the results. And if 2000 taught us anything is that the conservatives on the Supreme Court will make up their own law to help the republicans.

[PTWB]

47. A two party system is insanity.

I’m a proud Democrat and even I can see we would be better off with IRV and multiple viable political parties. Look how progressivism has stagnated because of our two party system. Republicans have been able to pull the middle to the right over the years. That has to stop and must be reversed.

[Trumpocalypse]

51. I support the Democratic Party

and am against anything that weakens it. Third parties have caused democrats to lose 2 elections in the last 20 years.

[muriel_volestrangler]

85. Third parties caused those losses *because of the old 'a plurality wins all' method*. IRV stops that

The point is that people who vote for a 3rd party like Nader in 2000 never get to say, in the present system, "but the Democrats are still better than the Republicans".

[Trumpocalypse]

86. Maybe/maybe not

[Zing Zing Zingbah]

115. Right... this is majority wins rather than plurality

The system that most states currently have results in Republicans winning without having to get majority support. RCV fixes that so that no one can win without majority support.

[Celerity]

76. +1000

[Zing Zing Zingbah]

50. It isn't meant to strengthen any party in particular

It is meant to make election results better reflect what the majority of voters wanted. It's so we don't end up with someone that only 30% of people like and the other 70% hate because there was a race with more than two candidates. The purpose is to strengthen democracy, not the Democratic Party.

[Trumpocalypse]

52. Well I support strengthening the Democratic Party

Are you saying that you don’t?

[Zing Zing Zingbah]

62. I'm thinking you are probably concerned about the 3rd parties/independents

Maine has laws like this because we have a lot of independents that run and a lot of people that vote for independents. The whole point of RCV is to prevent the independents from being spoilers.

https://www.fairvote.org/rcv#how_rcv_works
https://www.fairvote.org/rcv#rcvbenefits

[Trumpocalypse]

67. I am concerned that over the long term

It opens things up for third, fourth and fifth parties which will weaken the Democratic Party.

And consider this short term scenario. Trump gets 45% of the vote and Biden gets 44% but most third party candidate voters had Biden as their second choice so Biden wins. Trump will go to the Supreme Court to overturn the results. And if 2000 taught us anything is that the conservatives on the Supreme Court will make up their own law to help the republicans. And even if they don’t, Trump and the republicans will use it to delegitimize the election.

[Zing Zing Zingbah]

70. I don't think that is going to happen

and it is not happening in Maine. We've had independents win without RCV in Maine, such as Angus King. Democrats still do pretty good around here.

If RCV was the law nationally, then they can try but not get any where with it. We had that scenario in Maine already. Dem. Jared Golden ousted Repub. Bruce Poliquin for US house seat based on second choice votes, but Poliquin had a slight lead with the first choice votes, but also not 50%. There were 2 or 3 independents in the race. Poliquin made a big ordeal about it and brought it up to the Maine Supreme Court, but mostly a waste of time because he still lost and Golden is our rep now.

[Trumpocalypse]

71. I hope you are right

I just don’t see anything that helps thirds party candidates helping the Democratic Party in the long run.

[Zing Zing Zingbah]

72. I think it does

in that in the long run the candidates should get less extreme overall if there is more choice in an election and they have to actually get a majority to vote for them. That means Republicans can't just win with their die-hard people that would vote for them no matter what. They'll eventually have to change and start having a more broad appeal to win.

[Trumpocalypse]

73. Historically

Republicans are more loyal and stay unified while democrats/liberals are more pragmatic. While this may help in a few isolated elections there is a bigger picture that will weaken the Democratic Party.

[Silent3]

12. But unless that "excuse" adds up to a sizeable amount, in INCREASES the vote...

for the Democrat in many situations, like when someone votes Green for first choice, and Democratic for second choice.

[Trumpocalypse]

16. If

I don’t think it’s a good idea to count on if.

[Silent3]

29. It's all probabilities, but the odds are generally in our favor

Right now we have a small % of people who are dead set on using their one and only vote for a Green party candidate. The will do this without IRV. In a tight election, that's dangerous for Democrats.

Now, maybe some of the Green voters (or disgruntled Bernie Bros, or whatever) are so stubborn that they'd skip taking a second-choice vote even if they had one. IRV still doesn't hurt us there, it doesn't take anything away that we could have had anyway.

For those Green voters who do take advantage of a second-choice vote, given that this means they're probably very liberal and progressive, it's much more likely they'll choose a Democrat for second choice, certainly more likely than choosing a Republican.

So where's the harm?

Do you think that there's such a huge thirst out there for the Green party that people will, just because there's IRV, suddenly turn out in droves for the Greens in such numbers that a Democrat comes in second?

And in the rare case where there's a Democratic so conservative he/she pisses off most Dems, and we once in a while get a Green who'll likely caucus with Dems instead, are we really worse off?

[Trumpocalypse]

35. Do you really think people who voted for

Jill Stein would of put Clinton as their second choice? That is painfully naive.

The harm is it doesn’t help to strengthen the Democratic Party over the long term. It opens things up for third, fourth and fifth parties which will weaken the Democratic Party.

[Trumpocalypse]

43. I'm not fine with weakening the Democratic Party

Ever! And if voters were ruled by logic, Clinton would be President today. I’m strongly support the Democratic Party and am against anything that doesn’t help it.

[PTWB]

48. What does that mean? "Would of"

[Trumpocalypse]

54. Go here

https://www.merriam-webster.com/

[PTWB]

55. There is no entry for "would of" - are you capable of defining what that is supposed to mean?

[Trumpocalypse]

59. Sorry

Don’t play semantics games.

[PTWB]

60. Semantics?

Is that your way of saying that you can’t define what you’ve written?

[Trumpocalypse]

61. No

It’s my way of saying I don’t engage in silly deflection. Which BTW is just an admission that you can’t refute the point I was making.

[PTWB]

63. Hmm

It seems difficult to make a reasoned point when you’re using words that don’t have a definition.

You linked to the dictionary so perhaps you thought they had meaning and later discovered they don’t.

[Trumpocalypse]

64. My point was easy enough to understand

But I’ll say it again, no way Jill Stein voters were going to pick Clinton as their second choice. They hated Clinton which is why they voted for Stein. Can you refute that or not?

[PTWB]

65. Yes, I can refute it just as easily as you can prove it.

What does “would of” mean?

[Trumpocalypse]

68. Thanks

By still playing semantics games, you’ve admitted that you can’t refute my point.

[PTWB]

75. You've stated an opinion and cited nothing to support it.

Your opinion is no different than someone who claims every Stein voter would have picked Clinton as their second choice.

Were you able to find “would of” in the dictionary that you linked?

[Trumpocalypse]

77. Thanks again

Still playing semantics games just proves you can’t refute my point so you have to resort to a diversion.

[PTWB]

78. You haven't made a point, unfortunately. You've merely stated an opinion.

I’m very thankful to have had the opportunity to teach you!

[Trumpocalypse]

79. No thank you

You’re evasions prove you can’t dispute what I said.

[PTWB]

81. I am evasions? That doesn't make any sense.

There’s nothing to dispute. One cannot dispute an unsubstantiated, uninformed and poorly formed opinion.

I’m glad you’re no longer trying argue that “would of” has meaning. Educating you, however slightly, has made this exchange worthwhile!

[Trumpocalypse]

82. Instead of playing more grammatical games

Why not try to actually address the original issue. The repeated evasions only prove you can’t.

[PTWB]

83. I already addressed your opinion by disagreeing with it.

Ranked choice is great and will strengthen the Democratic Party and progressivism.

I’m not sure what “grammatical games” you’re referring to.

[Trumpocalypse]

87. I disagree

It gives some voters carte blanche to support a third party. That will weaken the Democratic Party. And it will not just affect voting but fundraising as well which will hurt the Democratic Party.

[PTWB]

89. Which voters were going to vote for Democrats that would rank a Republican before a Democrat?

[Trumpocalypse]

90. Some will

There is no way to guarantee that a third party voter will rank a Democrat as their second choice. Anything that doesn't strengthen the Democratic Party, ultimately weakens it.

[PTWB]

91. No one is going to do that on purpose.

Why would someone vote for Joe Biden in a traditional system but then given a ranked choice, rank Trump before Biden?

[Trumpocalypse]

93. They wouldn't

But Trump is not running 3rd party is he. But someone who votes 3rd party may or may not rank the Democrat as their 2nd choice. Plus this may also hurt Democratic fund raising efforts. The long term consequences of RCV do not help the Democratic party, they hurt it.

[PTWB]

94. Exactly!

You're finally getting it. Someone who votes for a third party may or may not rank Biden as their second choice. Someone who would rank Trump ahead of Biden was never going to vote for Biden over Trump in a head to head contest in the first place.

Do you have any data to support your claim that RCV may hurt the Democratic Party or Democratic fundraising?

[Trumpocalypse]

95. No

But I don't see it helping fund raising. It just doesn't build the Democratic party in any way.

[PTWB]

96. Sure it does.

I think RCV will increase turnout - historically, increased turnout benefits us significantly more than Republicans.

[Trumpocalypse]

97. It might increase turnout

and there is no guarantee that it will benefit democrats. It might just benefit third parties which will hurt democrats.

[PTWB]

98. But increased turnout does benefit Democrats.

[Trumpocalypse]

99. Yes

But in non RCV elections. There is no data on RCV elections yet.

[PTWB]

100. I see.

You’re saying that there is no data to suggest increased turnout would suddenly and inexplicably stop benefiting Democrats. That is something I can agree with!

[Trumpocalypse]

101. I'm saying there is no data either way

Nor is there any data that RCV would increase turnout.

[PTWB]

102. Yes there is!

We have gobs of historical data that indicates increased turnout benefits Democrats. It is possible, albeit extremely unlikely, that this will change with RCV. You can make that argument if that ever happens.

[Trumpocalypse]

103. Yes but not in RCV elections

Therefore that data is invalid. And there is also no data to even suggest that RCV will increase turnout.

I support building the Democratic Party. Thus, I can’t see any benefit in a system that by its very nature encourages people to vote for a third party candidate.

[PTWB]

104. That isn't how data works.

The historical data doesn’t magically become invalid. The relevancy must be weighed and measured given new procedures but overall the data is applicable.

The exact opposite of what you claim to fear has already transpired in Maine.

In the very first RCV election in Maine (2018), the incumbent Republican Congressman Bruce Poliquin, who initially led in first choices, lost to Democratic challenger Jared Golden in the ranked choice voting count.

[Trumpocalypse]

107. Actually it is

Data is valid when all the variables are the same or within certain parameters. When you change one of the major variables in such a radical way any historical data becomes invalid.

Plus there is no data that show that RCV increase turnout.

And the election is Maine is one election. It doesn't show the long term effects.

[PTWB]

108. You're wrong once again.

The data supports my position. Your opinion isn’t supported by anything. In fact, your opinion is directly at odds with the data.

[Trumpocalypse]

109. No I'm not

And there is no data that indicates RCV would increase turnout or that it would benefit Democratic candidates in an RCV election. Even data that increased turnout benefits Democrats in a traditional election is shaky.

https://www.factcheck.org/2016/06/sanders-shaky-turnout-claim/

[PTWB]

110. Nonsense.

This is the reality: the very first RCV in Maine resulted in a Democratic candidate defeating a Republican candidate when he would have lost without RCV.

RCV has already benefited Democrats. Arguing with reality isn’t a good look. Maybe you picked up that bad habit from your namesake.

Next you’ll be arguing that Republican attempts to suppress voter turnout actually benefit Democrats.

[Trumpocalypse]

111. In one election it benefited the Democratic candidate

There is no data to show the long term effects of RCV.

And I posted an article from factcheck.org. Are they wrong?

[PTWB]

113. Keep going!

You can just as easily say 100% of RCV elections have benefited Democrats. The simple fact is we have limited data for RCV - that limited data supports my position.

The FactCheck article says exactly what everyone always says. Increased turnout tends to slightly benefit Democrats. The margins are small enough that it only matters in extremely close elections.

[Trumpocalypse]

117. It's one election

My concern is the long term effects. My fear is it will weaken the Democratic Party.

And I never disagreed that in most cases increased turnout benefits Democrats. But it is not an absolute. And there is no data yet from RCV elections. And there is no data that supports that RCV will increase turnout.

[jpak]

13. Ummm NO

RCV was a backlash to Fucking Asshole Paul LeFuckPage getting elected twice without a majority of votes because of third party spoiler candidates.

My congressman Democrat Jared Golden beat his sorry assed gop dweeb opponent with RCV.

Try again.

[Trumpocalypse]

21. There are other remedies

Such as requiring a run off between the top two candidates if no candidate reaches 50%. I just don’t see this as helping to build and strengthen the Democratic Party.

[jpak]

23. RCV is an instant runoff

It does the same thing as a regular runoff.

Learn something.

[Trumpocalypse]

26. Not really

It gives people an excuse to support for third party candidates. That doesn’t help build the Democratic Party.

[jpak]

27. I have voted in Maine using RCV

And you are absolutely wrong.

Lol

[Trumpocalypse]

31. Congratulations

You’re a focus group of one.

[Trumpocalypse]

37. The weather in Florida is nice.

[Trumpocalypse]

45. Thank you

I'm honored LOL

[Trumpocalypse]

53. I'd like to thank the academy

for this great honor

[Zing Zing Zingbah]

66. I agree

If people honestly prefer the independent, then they are free to vote their conscience this way without having to worry that they helped a candidate that they don't like (maybe the Republican). I wish we'd get the Maine constitution amended so we could use RCV in the governor's race. Everyone in Maine knows that we would never have had LePage as governor if those races were RCV races.

[mainer]

69. I have voted in Maine using RCV. I love it.

I agree with you that it is a huge plus for democracy.

It allows us to vote our conscience, and then when the pie-in-the-sky candidate (Green or whoever) fails to garner enough votes, then our fantasy vote goes instead toward the practical candidate we always knew would win.

LePage made us all realize the danger of 3rd-party splits.

[Zing Zing Zingbah]

49. Still not a for sure thing from what I have heard

I guess they can print the RCV ballots for prez, but they may not get counted that way. Still waiting on yet another Maine supreme court hearing.

https://www.newscentermaine.com/article/news/politics/elections/court-clears-the-way-for-rcv-in-presidential-election/97-17e25d66-9274-4bfe-9132-69bcefd5160f

[Zing Zing Zingbah]

74. If anyone can read this... latest Portland Press Herald article on this

https://www.pressherald.com/2020/09/08/states-high-court-puts-brakes-on-decision-to-allow-ranked-choice-veto-question-in-november/

I'm over my article limit for the month with them already, but I believe it is saying that we still have one more court case to decide this like I was saying before.

[fescuerescue]

105. That will be very good for 3rd parties.

Whether it draws more from R or D is a good question.

[Zing Zing Zingbah]

114. It doesn't draw anything from the R or D

if the 3rd party isn't really competitive. They'd get knocked out of the race on the run off election and the second choice votes move to either the R or D.

[fescuerescue]

118. In terms of putting them in office? No

Not immediately.

But it will do alot to increase their visibility.

Many will select a 3rd party as their first choice, then a D or R as their second.

definitely will raise their profiles which may payoff years in the future.

[JustABozoOnThisBus]

106. I don't know how this would work. If I was voting in Maine, ...

... my first choice is ... Biden.

My second choice is ... no way I'm putting a check mark next to one of those other names. My second choice is "Biden".

Repeat.

[Zing Zing Zingbah]

112. You don't have to pick a second or third choice

Rank them if you want to or only choose your first choice. That's how it works.

[JustABozoOnThisBus]

116. Ok then, it may work.

Hopefully, we won't have to find out. Biden could just get more than 50% on the first counting, and it's done. Oh, and Collins could get something under 15% and maybe that'll be done, too.