Pundits often say that elections are determined by the people who show up: an obvious observation. But using a system designed to elect one of two candidates does not work well when there are three or more running for the same office.

Democracies, at their best, are vibrant and responsive to keeping voting open and fair. Citizen engagement is what promotes these qualities; amendments 15 and 19 were not “given” to people of color and women, they were fought for by ordinary citizens. What seems obvious in today’s world was at one point perceived as radical, costly, and dangerous.

Ranked-choice voting is being portrayed in this manner, despite the reality of the proposal. The opposition to ranked-choice voting claims it is unnecessary, confusing and has no impact on negative campaigning.

None of these accusations is true.

The governor’s urging to “just say no” to all the ballot initiatives, including ranked-choice voting, mimics Nancy Reagan’s naive response to drugs and makes it clear that, similarly, Gov. Paul LePage has a simplistic and inaccurate view of issues he disagrees with.

Candidates for governor in nine of the last 11 gubernatorial races were elected by less than half of voters. In five of those races, candidates were elected by less than 40 percent of voters. This is not a representative democracy.

Having a ranked-choice voting ballot for all elections with more than two candidates is inexpensive, easy and effective. We have tested it in our largest city in Maine, and it worked well; voters were not confused, and turnout was high. Instead of appealing to one policy concern or a single constituency, candidates had to speak to the larger audience on issues that impacted everyone. This is what democracy looks like.

Barbara Bixby

Winthrop

Copy the Story Link