If you have ever been married, held a job or maintained a lifelong friendship, you can confirm that how we do things matters.

The voting methods we choose to elect our leaders, the levels of openness we decide for primaries and the campaign finance laws we establish are examples of decisions that we make about how to do elections that can inform, influence and even alter the rhetoric and behavior of candidates. What’s more, in an age of never-ending campaigning, how we do elections has a profound impact on the approach that politicians take to governing and for whom they govern.

When campaign finance laws are weak, as they are now across America, candidates spend more time courting support from wealthy donors and special interests than listening to everyday voters. In this environment of unregulated and unlimited money in campaigns, the decisions made in Washington, D.C., and in Augusta disproportionately favor the interests of the few over the needs of the many.

The evidence is overwhelming. Fortunately, last year’s heroic decision by Maine voters to impose limits on contributions to super PACs could close the door on quid pro quo corruption if advocates secure a legal victory in federal court. This case is expected to eventually make its way to the U.S. Supreme Court.

Over the past decade, Maine has been moving away from pick-one plurality voting because of its unintended negative consequences of vote-splitting and non-majority winners. In its place, Maine has courageously trailblazed ranked choice voting (RCV). This simple change of giving voters the power to rank their choices incentivizes parties, PACs and politicians to reach beyond initial bases of support to build majority coalitions.

According to 20 years of exit surveys and polling, voters and candidates in RCV elections report less negative campaigning and indicate that they prefer RCV over pick-one plurality voting.

Recently, voters in New York City went to the polls to choose their nominees to become the next mayor of America’s largest city. In a city known for tough politics, the adoption of RCV proved to be a game-changer. The levels of issue-focused messaging, grassroots door-knocking, increased positivity and coalition-building beyond geographic and ideological bases of support in the election were extraordinary.

Voters were energized. The candidates who ultimately finished in first and third place had similar visions for the city’s future and cross-endorsed one another as their second choices. They campaigned with one another and even appeared together on “The Late Show” the night before the election.

In Maine, we witnessed this process unfold similarly in the 2018 Democratic primary. It was noticeably more positive, issue-focused and voter-centric than in previous years. Former Speaker Mark Eves and progressive pioneer Betsy Sweet cross-endorsed and campaigned together. Both candidates experienced increased voter support as a result of changing how they campaigned in response to the different incentives offered by RCV.

The candidates seeking their respective party’s nominations for governor in 2026 would be wise to learn from these examples, recognize the different formula needed to win a primary with RCV and align their campaign strategies accordingly. Those who do will be rewarded by voters.

In looking toward next year’s general election, the independent candidacy of moderate state Sen. Rick Bennett demonstrates yet again the need for RCV to eliminate vote-splitting and ensure that Maine’s next governor is supported by a majority of voters. It is unclear whether the former Maine Senate president and one-time chair of the state GOP will draw more support from Democrats or Republicans. We won’t know until after the debates next fall.

Since 1974, Maine has elected an equal number of Democratic, Republican and independent governors without majority support — and drama ensued. Dysfunction and gridlock in Augusta are increasingly likely when Maine’s governor is elected without a majority mandate and is opposed by more than half of voters. It is in the best interest of Democrats and Republicans to finish the job of expanding RCV for state general elections in order to avoid extreme infighting, stalemates and shutdowns.

It just might be that how we elect our leaders is even more important than who we elect because the methods, systems and rules we choose — and insist upon — not only shape how candidates campaign and leaders govern, but can change the trajectory of a city, a state and a nation for generations to come.

Governors and mayors come and go. Senators and representatives sail off into the sunset. Presidents only have eight years at most. Process endures.

How we do elections matters more than many of us ever considered, until we considered it.