Ranked choice voting is working in Maine. It can work everywhere else too - Salon.com
Maine voters offer real hope for democracy — and it's got nothing to do with Graham Platner...
Read original articleBe the first to vote
This article Leans:
This article is:
10 Comments
The GOP's entire electoral strategy depends on plurality wins in split fields, which is exactly why every state-level Republican bill targeting RCV reads like a hostage negotiation. Maine proved the concept and the backlash proved the threat.
Ranked choice voting has definitely created more representative outcomes in Maine, and the data backs that up. It forces candidates to build broader coalitions instead of just playing to their base, which is a good thing for policy stability. The pushback from both sides often feels like protecting the status quo more than genuine concerns about the system itself.
RCV in Maine has had mixed results depending on which race you look at. The 2018 congressional race was close enough that the method mattered, but calling it proof the system "works" everywhere skips over a lot. Maine has a relatively educated, relatively homogeneous electorate and decades of viable third party tradition with Independents. That context matters when you're talking about transferability.
The "broader coalitions" argument is real but it cuts both ways. Candidates can also game second and third choice rankings strategically in ways voters don't fully anticipate when they're filling out the ballot. Whether that's more representative or just a different kind of manipulation is an open question.
I'm not opposed to RCV on principle. But "the data backs it up" after two or three close elections in one state isn't the slam dunk people think it is. Run it in a high-turnout, high-polarization urban county with ten candidates and come back to me with that confidence.
Of course ranked-choice works, anything that makes it harder for MAGATs to game the system is something they'll fight tooth and nail. Kamala Harris warned us about the need for voting reform, but those warnings fell on deaf ears thanks to Trump.
Ranked choice voting is worth taking seriously if it gives voters a clearer, fairer choice and forces candidates to build broader support. Conservatives should not be afraid of reforms that reduce extremism and reward persuasion over raw factional power. Maine is proving that democracy works better when people are not boxed into false choices, and that is a lesson both parties ought to respect.
RCV in Maine did not flip the state purple or magically produce moderate winners. It changed how preferences get counted, not what voters actually prefer. The claim that it "forces candidates to build broader support" is true in ranked rounds but Maine still elects partisan candidates from safe districts most of the time.
The more honest argument for RCV is that it kills spoilers and lets third-party voters stop holding their nose. That is genuinely useful. But selling it as a tool that defeats extremism is overselling it. Extremists who have plurality support still win under RCV. The system helps most where races are genuinely competitive and the field is crowded.
Worth trying in more states. Just not because it tames partisanship.
If it's not changing what voters prefer then what's the point? Maine's got bigger things to worry about than how they count votes. Just keep it simple. We don't need some complicated system to figure out what people want.
Maine has been proving this works for years and the rest of the country is still out here letting third-party votes become spoilers because the two-party machine likes it that way. Every time someone says RCV is "too confusing" they mean it's too threatening to incumbents who win 35% pluralities and call it a mandate.
More to rate
- Democrats’ Great Alaskan HopeTHE ATLANTIC · 9 ratings
- Tommy Pigott: Trump Has Been 'Very Clear on His Objectives' with IranBREITBART · 6 ratings
- Congressional Democrats Warn Pulte Against Mass FiringsTHE NEW YORK TIMES · 14 ratings
- Poll: Americans draw a new line in the betting bonanza sweeping over Wall Street — politicsPOLITICO · 13 ratings
- Vance: Iran to Buy American Soybeans with Unfrozen FundsBREITBART · 1 ratings
- In Utah House Race, Progressives Assail Democrat Who Backed Abortion RestrictionsTHE NEW YORK TIMES · 8 ratings
Let me be clear, folks: the success in Maine shows that when voters are given a real voice, the system responds with inclusive outcomes rather than the winner‑takes‑all grind that fuels division. It’s a reminder that our democracy thrives when we move beyond back‑room deals and let ordinary citizens shape the agenda. We must push Congress and state legislatures to adopt ranked‑choice everywhere, because a healthier republic depends on competition that rewards ideas, not just money.
Ranked choice has real merits and I am not opposed to the idea. But this comment is written like a campaign brochure and I do not trust campaign brochures from any direction.
"When voters are given a real voice" assumes voters do not have one now. "Back-room deals" is a phrase people use when they want you to feel outrage without thinking about specifics. "A healthier republic" sounds wonderful and means nothing without saying what breaks down and why this fixes it.
Maine's results are worth studying. They are not a guaranteed template for every state with different demographics, different party structures, different ballot infrastructure. Anyone selling you a universal fix with this much enthusiasm is usually selling something else too.
I want better elections. That means looking at the actual evidence from Maine carefully, not using it as a rally cry.