Ranked-choice voting initiative submitted in Maine

[Miles]

Article.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Mehmentum]

Freedom state.

[Figueira]

I've heard some things that indicate that ranked-choice voting isn't ideal, but it's better than FPTP and I think it would work well in Maine given the political climate there. I hope this passes.

[rob in cal]

    Would love to see this passed, and I think Maine is a nice environment for a vote on it.  Opponents might try to link it with proportional representation, and come up with scare tactic arguments that this will lead to small extremist parties winning seats.  In fact, based on the Australian experience, while it does help the vote for small parties, they still rarely win seats, but get more first preference votes than they would have had there been FPTP in effect.

[SteveRogers]

I've heard some things that indicate that ranked-choice voting isn't ideal, but it's better than FPTP and I think it would work well in Maine given the political climate there. I hope this passes.

Well there's no such thing as a perfect voting system. Arrow's impossibility theorem and all that. IRV assures you a majority winner, but creates incentives for disingenuous strategic voting under certain circumstances. It's also sort of fool's gold for minor parties. That being said, it's about the best improvement over FPTP you could realistically hope for in the American system, and Maine especially needs it with the state's history of strong third party candidates that act as spoilers on occasion.

[Figueira]

I've heard some things that indicate that ranked-choice voting isn't ideal, but it's better than FPTP and I think it would work well in Maine given the political climate there. I hope this passes.

Well there's no such thing as a perfect voting system. Arrow's impossibility theorem and all that. IRV assures you a majority winner, but creates incentives for disingenuous strategic voting under certain circumstances. It's also sort of fool's gold for minor parties. That being said, it's about the best improvement over FPTP you could realistically hope for in the American system, and Maine especially needs it with the state's history of strong third party candidates that act as spoilers on occasion.

Yeah, I've heard the thing about it being fools' gold. It allows people to vote for minor parties without guilt, but it doesn't actually help minor parties win, and voting for Ralph Nader can hand the election to George W. Bush under certain circumstances.

However, I think it would work in Maine since the independents tend to be centrist.

[Bismarck]

My first impression is that this is designed to help democrats avoid Paul Lepage situations. Helps dems a lot in my opinion.

[Vega]

Ranked-choice isn't any better really, and is occasionally worse.

MMP or STV is the way to go.

[An American Tail: Fubart Goes West]

Ranked-choice isn't any better really, and is occasionally worse.

MMP or STV is the way to go.

MMP doesn't work for electing a governor.

[SteveRogers]

Ranked-choice isn't any better really, and is occasionally worse.

MMP or STV is the way to go.

MMP doesn't work for electing a governor.

Neither does STV, it'd be the same as IRV.

[rob in cal]

    Ranked choice voting is basically the same as STV, but for a one winner election.  So, when Ireland elects its President, or there is a by-election for a parliament seat, they use what amounts to ranked choice voting.   If Maine passed this, perhaps over time there could be a discussion about having multi-member state legislature seats, and then converting the existing machinery for ranked choice voting into an Irish style STV system.
    Australia has given clear evidence that ranked choice voting is fools gold for small parties, love that analogy, btw.

[Oldiesfreak1854]

Why is ranked choice so much better anyway?  I see no need for this sort of thing.

My first impression is that this is designed to help democrats avoid Paul Lepage situations. Helps dems a lot in my opinion.

Cutler wasn't any more of a spoiler than any minor party candidate.  Democrats are just being sore losers after 2010 and 2014.

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

Why is ranked choice so much better anyway?  I see no need for this sort of thing.

My first impression is that this is designed to help democrats avoid Paul Lepage situations. Helps dems a lot in my opinion.

Cutler wasn't any more of a spoiler than any minor party candidate.  Democrats are just being sore losers after 2010 and 2014.

Gives more choice and is cheaper and better than"run-offs". I would have thought you'd like this, it's good for moderates. For example, let's take a hypothetical case where hypothetically the frontrunner republican is a man who wears diapers and visits prostitutes (COMPLYELEY HYPOTHETICAL). assuming most opponents are of the anti-diaper disposition they don't want this hypothetical man as their governor - but alas, two opponents split the anti-diaper vote, leaving only him and the guy in the other party in power.

I'm mostly intrigued about whether it covers primaries as well, which would really be helpful.