1. I notice that the Maine instant run-off system doesn’t include votes for President (or Presidential electors, to be precise). Why is that? Given that Gary Johnson got more than 5% in Maine, and that the votes were close between Trump and Clinton (in fact, they split the district votes), why shouldn’t Johnson voters have been able to indicate a ranked choice?

2. I don’t know why the sponsors didn’t include president. But there is no reason why the new law can’t be amended to include president.

3. I am confused about why the primary election still exists in Maine. If a candidate participates in a primary and loses, is there a sore loser law to keep that person off the general election ballot?

4. Don,
   I too wonder why a primary. This system removes the need for one. Even if there were several candidates from the same party running, the votes would eventually transfer (aggregate) around the most preferred candidate of that party.

5. The sponsors are taking advantage of the particular situation in Maine with the current governor, who has been elected twice on plurality votes where there was an independent candidate with strong support. IN one election, the Democrat was the “spoiler”, and in the next the “independent” candidate.

   In other words, the problem they were trying to solve was not “what is the best way to elect public officials”, but “how can we get rid of Clarence LePage”. Instead of an example using ice cream cones, they can use previous gubernatorial elections.

   The proposal does apply IRV to the primaries, but it is extremely rare to have three candidates seeking nomination for a legislative seat.

   The story mentions a provision in the Maine Constitution that requires plurality election, at least for Governor and the legislature. Somehow the supporters believe that their measure complies with that.

   There can be leakage if there are several candidates of the same party. In Top 2 elections in California, it appears that more candidates for a party leads to more votes for the party. (e.g. if two candidates receive 50% of the vote; three would receive 55%, and four would receive 60%). The growth in total support does not necessarily offset the effect of division among the multiple candidates.

   If the Alphabet Party has Adam Adams, Betty Betty, Chuck Charles, and Dave David running. The NeverChuck voter might vote for other three but not Chuck. And voters may be confused by the ballots. In some places a voter ranks candidates by filling in an oval in a column according to the rank.

   So a voter might vote:

   Adams XXX
   Betty
   Charles XXX
   David XXX

   Instead of the common sense

   Adams 1
   Betty
   Charles 3
   David 2

   or

   1. Adams
   2. David
   3, Charles

   The result is some voters mark all columns for the same candidate.

   Adams XXX XXX XXX

   Which is equivalent to.

   Adams 1,2,3

   or

   1. Adams
   2. Adams
   3. Adams

   Other voters will fill in a ballot as:

   Adams XXX XXX
   Betty XXX

   Which apparently means that Adams was a first and third choice.

   For the Maine House (151 members), there were 128 races with two candidates, 19 with one candidate, and only four with three candidates. The Democrats had 11 contested primaries, and the Republicans nine. Only three (two Democrat and one Republican) had three candidates.

6. Approval Voting is much easier to implement. It lets people vote for all the candidates they approve of, and the candidate with the most votes wins. No ranking, just count the votes.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.