Here is a sample ballot for Maine for the November 2026 election. In general elections, Maine uses ranked choice voting for federal offices but not state offices. And in federal offices, if there are only two candidates on the ballot and no declared write-in candidate, RCV is not used.
The reason RCV is not used for state office in general elections is because the Maine Supreme Court ruled that the state Constitution prohibits RCV in state office elections, although ironically it can be used for state office primaries.
So, RCV is almost meaningless in Maine in 2026. The U.S. Senate race only has two candidates on the ballot, although there is a declared write-in candidate, so RCV is used for the U.S. Senate election.
For Governor, there are three candidates on the ballot (Democratic, Republican, independent). RCV would therefore be truly useful for the gubernatorial election, but it can’t be used.
To see both sides of the ballot linked above, use the arrows.
RCV is communist.
No country with a Communist Party government uses RCV.
Maine has a communist government. Look at Janet Mills.
You just want communists like Chase Oliver in power.
Chase Oliver? Who cares about that fag
Under Common Law, if no candidate receives a majority, the election is voided, and a new election is held. In the first presidential election in New Hampshire, they told the towns to hold an election, doh. The voters didn’t know who to vote for “presidential elector” so the vote was largely scattered. The top 10 candidates had 8954 votes collectively, out of 20,142 total. The legislature had to step in and appoint the five electors for New Hampshire. In early congressional elections in New England, if no candidate received a majority a second, third, etc. election would be held. These were called “trials” (i.e., they tried to elect someone; if you first don’t succeed, try, try, again). Sometimes, there would be a entire Congress without a representative being chosen. In other cases, there was a deadlock until the original candidates stepped aside.
Before there were government-printed ballots, there was no way to have a formal runoff ballot. A trailing candidate might drop out, and his name would not be printed on informal party-printed or newspaper-printed ballots. The problem manifested in legislative and gubernatorial elections. Maine resolved the problem by requiring that the governor and legislature be elected by plurality.
The Maine Constitution is silent on the election of Congress, and thus their election can be specified in statute (in Maine, the statute does specify that the governor and legislature be elected by RCV, but the Maine Supreme Court has ruled those provisions unconstitutional.
There are six write-in candidates for the senate, including an independent, an unaffiliated, and an unenrolled, two Democrats, and a satirical party (e.g. OMRLP Official Monster Raving Loony Party; OWL Out With Logic; Die PARTEI; and Rhinoceros Party.) In Maine, the party is Faith in Humanity.
Maine should permit voters to rank all six write-in candidates in addition to the on-ballot candidates.
Thanks, Mr. Riley
Richard Winger, we’ve been over this. In countries that aren’t already controlled by communists, the vast majority of communists don’t call themselves that.
Communists employ different strategies in countries they don’t yet control (to undermine and destroy them) vs those they do .
For example, communists in countries they control aren’t nearly so keen on libertine social views and opposing military spending and foreign military engagement as the commie scum in countries they already control are.
The reason rcv is rotten commie vomit is it makes elections and vote counting more complicated.
That makes it easier to cheat.
Commie demon rat traitors, with help from Red China, do 99%+ of the cheating.
0.666 IQ polisci morons love minority rule BY MONARCHS/OLIGARCHS —
via rigged unequal ballot access laws and rigged MINORITY RULE gerrymanders.
—
PR
APPV
TOTSOP
“POLISCI” IS HOT GARBAGE.
YOU’D HAVE TO BE WAY DUMBER THAN A 0.666 IQ MORON TO MISTAKE IT FOR ACTUAL SCIENCE.
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2026/10/05/trump-midterms-unprecedented-efforts-to-boost-gop/92100811007/
TYRANT TRUMP 2026 ELECTION MACHINATIONS
ESP BRIBES – GOVT $$$ LOOT
USSR YESTERDAY IS FAKE NEWS
JR wrote:
“Under Common Law, if no candidate receives a majority, the election is voided, and a new election is held”
Does every state that uses plurality voting have a requirement for it in their laws?
Under common law? Please elaborate.
https://www.britannica.com/topic/election-political-science/Voting-practices
VOTING SYSTEMS ETC.
More BS propaganda.
@AZ,
I did not find anything in Brittanica relative to the issue. Could you quote a paragraph?
You’re looking for something relevant from the AZ spambot?.LOL
@WZ,
I was probably wrong attributing practices in New England to common law. It appears it stemmed from combining religious (Puritan) governance and secular government. As you probably know, town meeting houses were used for both religious meetings and town meetings. Under congregationalist religious doctrine, each congregation elects its own minister and is autonomous. Similarly each town was autonomous. The church had no use for bishops, the state no need for governors. Because consensus was important for a congregation, majority election of ministers was required. Towns and parishes were not formally separated in Massachusetts until 1833.
The Constitution of Maine explicitly specifies election by plurality of the governor and legislators, in part because it previously required majority election. In amending the constitution, they had to deliberately cross out the word “majority”.
See Constitution of Maine – https://legislature.maine.gov/ros/LawsOfMaine/#Const
in particular:
Article IV, Part 1, Section 5, election of representatives;
Article IV, Part 2, Section 5, election of senators;
Article V, Section 3, election of governor.
Note that if the popular election for governor is tied, the legislature chooses whom is elected.
Also note that the constitution provides explicit procedures for tabulating the votes at the town level, and sending these tabulations to the secretary of state for aggregation. A RCV election requires sending the ballots to a central location, even it is done electronically.
I might have misunderstood what common law is. My understanding is or was that it’s uncodified and covers things that are generally understood, for example that murder and rape are actionable offenses, plus cultural traditions, for example that if a couple has lived together for (culturally defined) number of years, they are in a “common law marriage,” regardless of any actual laws on the books.
Is it actually a codified body of law that’s formally adopted, contrary to what I understood up til now? If so, what makes it “common” law rather than just law?
@WZ, continuing…
Compare the modern version of the Maine Constitution with the 1820 version. This was created when Maine separated from Massachusetts, and borrows heavily from the 1780 Massachusetts Constitution. The Massachusetts Constitution predates the US Constitution by seven years and was written largely by John Adams, who could be a bit wordy.
https://legislature.maine.gov/uploads/originals/const1820.pdf
The Maine Constitution had refined some of the ideas of the Massachusetts Constitution, but retained aspects of the bicameral legislature and executive from Massachusetts.
Article IV, Part 1, Section 5. Representatives were elected from a single town, or groups of smaller towns. Larger towns would elect multiple representatives (these were apportioned on the basis of population, but it was not linear, but rather quadratic. Smaller towns would be grouped together to elect a single representative. Election required a majority. If a town failed to elect all its representatives it would hold a new election for the remnant. If elections were held at a town meeting, it would be possible to hold a new election immediately. Elections were by ballot, where a voter would simply write the names of N of their neighbors.
Article IV, Part 2, Section 5. Senators were elected from multi-member districts. Votes would be cast by ballot in each town and tallied, and the results sent to the Secretary of State/Governor where they would be totaled. Candidates who received a majority would be elected. The elected representatives and senators would choose the remainder from among the top vote-getters in the popular election. This was a quasi-Top 2 election. If a district was apportioned three senators, and one was elected by a majority, then the legislature would choose two more from among the top four vote-getters aside from the majority winner.
Article V, Section 3. A popular election would be held in each town, and the tabulated results sent to the capital. If a candidate received a majority, they would be elected. If not, then the House of Representatives would choose two from among the Top 4, and then the Senate would choose the governor from those two.
In 1847, a constitutional amendment was proposed that would replace “majority” with “the highest number” (i.e. plurality). The three changes were voted on separately. Plurality election of representatives narrowly passed (51.1%), while the senatorial and gubernatorial provisions narrowly failed (49.8% and 49.3%, respectively). I don’t know the reason for the separation. Perhaps there had been situations where there were deadlocked elections with the rise of the radically abolitionist Liberty Party.
In 1875, a constitutional amendment was passed that provided for plurality election of senators. This may have been due to Democrats becoming competitive after the Civil War, and development of the 3rd-Party Greenback party which in New England drew mainly from Republicans.
In 1879, Maine almost faced Civil War over the gubernatorial election. A Democrat had been elected governor in 1878, for the first time since the Civil War. He and the legislature manipulated the results of legislative election so that a majority of Democrats and Greenback legislators were elected in an event known as the “Great Count-Out”. Eventually, the Maine Supreme Court, which met in Bangor to avoid the tumult in Augusta, ruled in favor of the Republicans, who then elected the Republican governor who had received 49.52% of the popular vote. The constitution was then amended to provide for plurality election of the governor.
Note that the elimination of the “majority” election of senators and governor did not eliminate a runoff, but rather eliminate the need for a contingent election by the legislature.
In Massachusetts, the election of delegates to the General Court by majority had been established in 1634, as part of the transformation of what had been the governance of the Massachusetts Bay Company into governance of the Massachusetts Bay Colony, the company’s business operation. The deputies acted as the shareholders who elected 18 assistants who served as a board of directors. Majority election by towns was consistent with Puritan practices of autonomous parishes electing their minister by majority. In 1677, the Massachusetts Bay Colony purchased what has become Maine.
The charter of the Massachusetts Bay Colony was revoked by Charles II in 1684. After the Glorious Revolution, a new charter in 1691 created the Province of Massachusetts Bay, which included the former Plymouth Colony; Martha’s Vineyard, Nantucket, and the Elizabeth Islands which had been under New York control, Maine, and what would become New Hampshire and Nova Scotia. These latter two were later separated from Massachusetts.
The charter of the Province of Massachusetts provided that the General Court should included “Freeholders … elected or deputed by the Major parte of the Freeholders and other Inhabitants of the respective Towns or Places who shall be present at such Eleccons” The constitution of Massachusetts which included the District of Maine provided for the popular election of representatives, senators, and the governor, with a requirement for majority election. Representatives were elected from towns, and if insufficient candidates received a majority additional ballots would be conducted on the same day, or later day or week. In some instances, a town might leave a seat vacant (towns were responsible for the expenses of their representative in Boston, so this would save money. Senatorial election also required a majority. If insufficient senators were popularly elected, the rest of the legislature (General Court) would choose the senators from among the top vote-getters. Similarly, if no gubernatorial candidate received a majority, the legislature would choose the governor from among the top vote-getters.
At the time of separation around 1/4 of Massachusetts legislators were from Maine. Had industrialization not occurred in Massachusetts, it is conceivable that a majority of the state population might have lived in Maine.
In Maine, the use of “plurality” in the Constitution is a result of deliberate choice in amending the Constitution and removing the word “majority”. In addition, the procedure by which elections are administered at the local level, including tallying votes is explicit in the Constitution.
The Maine Constitution is silent on congressional elections, and thus RCV may be used for both primaries and general election for federal offices. The constitution is also silent on the nomination process for the legislature and governor, and RCV may be used for primary elections. But its use for the general election is unconstitutional. A constitutional amendment would require a 2/3 supermajority.
Curious,
Common law is based on judicial precedent, as opposed to statute.
According to woke pedophiles,
The common law, so named because it was common to all the king’s courts across England, originated in the practices of the courts of the English kings in the centuries following the Norman Conquest in 1066.[8][9] It established a unified legal system, gradually supplanting the local folk courts and manorial courts.[9][8] England spread the English legal system across the British Isles, first to Wales, and then to Ireland and overseas colonies; this was continued by the later British Empire. Many former colonies retain the common law system today. These common law systems are legal systems that give great weight to judicial precedent, and to the style of reasoning inherited from the English legal system.[10][11][12][13] Today, approximately one-third of the world’s population lives in common law jurisdictions or in mixed legal systems that integrate common law and civil law.[1]
“predates the US Constitution by seven years and was written largely by John Adams, who could be a bit wordy.”
Related at all to Jim Riley?
Thanks HG.
So I guess common law all comes down to a chronologically grown up game of (then not yet invented) telephone by long dead Brittanic (then not yet discovered) kangaroos?
@JA,
I do have an ancestor with the middle name of Quincy.
Tantalizing tease.