Here is the Maine initiative for Ranked Choice Voting, which is circulating. If passed, Maine would use it for all partisan federal except president, and all partisan state office. Thanks to Mike Drucker for the link.
Here is the Maine initiative for Ranked Choice Voting, which is circulating. If passed, Maine would use it for all partisan federal except president, and all partisan state office. Thanks to Mike Drucker for the link.
It does not include president.
How is a state that requires a candidate to take their petition to election officials in every town and village, going to conduct a statewide election using Instant Potato Voting?
How is a state that conducts a recount which indicates that a candidate who was the “apparent” winner on election night actually had fewer votes than their opponent, but refused to sign a consent form, will be seated in the Maine senate, while a committee considers the issue, deal with a recount under Instant Gratification Voting? (see SD-25 recount).
Why keep the segregated partisan primaries, held 6 months before the general election? How are they necessary for Instant Potemkin Voting?
Thank you for the point about president. I have amended the post.
Maine uses the same vote-counting equipment uniformly throughout the state.
I suggest that you post an entry about the recount in Senate District 25 in Maine.
Why do they exclude presidential elections? Recall that in 1992, Ross Perot was second statewide, and in the northern-most congressional district. Had IRV been in place, the independent Perot might have carried the state (this would have required a 63.5%:36.5% among Bush, Marrou, Fulani, and Phillips voters to choose Perot over Clinton, not at all implausible.
For that matter, the ranking of Perot and Bush might have changed. Each of Marrou, Fulani, and Phillips received more votes than the razor thin 316-vote margin between Perot and Bush.
In ME-2, a Perot victory would have been almost certain, requiring only a 57.7%:42.3% among supporters of Bush and the others.
Even in ME-1, it is not inconceivable that Bush would have prevailed on a 65.8%:34.2% split among supporters of Perot and others.
And this analysis totally disregards dynamic effects, where voters were told that a vote for Perot was wasted.