In accusing three Democratic candidates of “cronyism” and “gaming” the system, by sharing their preferences with each other, Moriah Freeman (“In Maine governor’s race, connection is preferable to cronyism,” May 31) mistakes the point of ranked-choice voting (RCV).

The aim of RCV is to ensure that the winner has the support of a majority of voters, while winner-take-all allows one to win with much less. With the current five Democratic candidates, one can win with as little as 20%, or with the seven Republicans, 15%.

RCV also encourages candidates to seek common ground with other candidates, while voters can vote their choice(s) without wasting their vote. 

Australians have long used ranked-choice voting, with the result that many parties and points of view flourish, parties seek to build coalitions by sharing their preferences and winners gain a working majority.

In Maine, Shenna Bellows, Troy Jackson, and Hannah Pingree share a point of view and are encouraging their voters to cast their preferences for each other. 

While their point of view may be shared by a group of voters, if they split those votes three ways, they could lose to a single opposing candidate, allowing that candidate to win with a minority of the vote going into the election against Republicans in November. But if their voters share their preferences, their votes would eventually be pooled.

Far from “gaming” the system, the three candidates are thus doing precisely what RCV is designed to do: building coalitions of like-minded candidates and voters. Republicans are now doing the same.

Thomas Spear
Brunswick