Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Top Stories

Maine's unique RCV system buttressed by a rare four-way Senate debate

Sen. Susan Collins of Maine

When Maine holds its first 2020 Senate debate on Sept. 11, incumbent Susan Collins will share the stage with three other candidates.

Pool/Getty Images

Griffiths is the editor of Independent Voter News, where a version of this story first appeared.

Maine's Senate race is one of the most competitive in the country, and central to the Democrats' efforts to take back control of the chamber from the Republicans. As the final stretch of the campaign begins, however, voters will get at least one high-profile opportunity to consider the contest as more than the usual two-party showdown.

The first televised debate, on Sept. 11, will include not only Republican incumbent Susan Collins and her principal challenger, Democratic state House Speaker Sara Gideon, but also independents Lisa Savage and Max Linn.

The arrangement is notable because it's so different from how the presidential debates are handled, and because it means there will be more of a consequence for the state's unique election system.


The two independents have collectively notched between 10 percent and 20 percent of the vote in recent polls — but will still get the free TV exposure vital to their longshot challenges. In contrast, making the presidential debate stage requires a steady 15 percent or better showing in voter surveys, something no one but the GOP and Democratic nominees has managed in a quarter century.

Moreover, Maine is for now the only state that elects members of Congress using ranked-choice voting, which elevates the importance of third-party and independent candidates and makes their inclusion in the debates all the more important.

The second choices of independents tipped the election two years ago to Jared Golden, the forest person ever sent to the House in a ranked election. Nov. 3 will mark the nation's first RCV contest for a Senate seat.

Prior to the system's adoption in the state four years ago, four visible candidates in a tight Senate race would likely have meant a winner who secured only a plurality of the vote. Now, no winner will be declared who is not endorsed on a majority of ballots.

Advocates of ranked elections say the system gives voters greater confidence to pick the candidate they truly want to win as their first preference — as opposed to voting with a "lesser-of-two-evils mindset," while also indicating who they would select in subsequent runoffs by indicating a second, third and fourth preference.

This also means that candidates have to compete for voters they might not have had to under a choose-one voting method. Now, the Republican and Democratic nominees have to figure out how they can appeal to voters who prefer the independent and third-party nominees.

Having all four candidates on the debate stage at the same time gives voters a chance to effectively compare and contrast the nominees. It can help them make a more informed decision on who to rank second, third and fourth.

Candidates, on the other hand, have to be more mindful and considerate of the ideas and opinions of the others on stage. How Collins and Gideon respond to independent ideas and opinions could sway the election one way or another.

In other words, voters have more choice and the independent candidates have a stronger voice in the process — something voters in other states won't see much during the general election campaign.

It's highly likely the outcome will be either a fifth term for Collins or a first term for Gideon, because they are the major-party candidates and have received millions in donations because Maine is central to both the GOP and Democratic plans for securing control of the Senate for the coming two years. But, advocates of RCV say, the inclusion of more voices that get heard and the ability of voters to get behind more choices can only be a good thing for democracy

Visit IVN.us for more coverage from Independent Voter News.

Read More

news app
New platforms help overcome biased news reporting
Tero Vesalainen/Getty Images

The Selective Sanctity of Death: When Empathy Depends on Skin Color

Rampant calls to avoid sharing the video of Charlie Kirk’s death have been swift and emphatic across social media. “We need to keep our souls clean,” journalists plead. “Where are social media’s content moderators?” “How did we get so desensitized?” The moral outrage is palpable; the demands for human dignity urgent and clear.

But as a Black woman who has been forced to witness the constant virality of Black death, I must ask: where was this widespread anger for George Floyd? For Philando Castile? For Daunte Wright? For Tyre Nichols?

Keep ReadingShow less
Following Jefferson: Promoting Inter-Generational Understanding Through Constitution-Making
Mount Rushmore
Photo by John Bakator on Unsplash

Following Jefferson: Promoting Inter-Generational Understanding Through Constitution-Making

No one can denounce the New York Yankee fan for boasting that her favorite ballclub has won more World Series championships than any other. At 27 titles, the Bronx Bombers claim more than twice their closest competitor.

No one can question admirers of the late, great Chick Corea, or the equally astonishing Alison Krauss, for their virtually unrivaled Grammy victories. At 27 gold statues, only Beyoncé and Quincy Jones have more in the popular categories.

Keep ReadingShow less
A close up of the Immigration and Customs Enforcement badge.

Trump’s mass deportations promise security but deliver economic pain, family separation, and chaos. Here’s why this policy is failing America.

Getty Images, Tennessee Witney

The Cruel Arithmetic of Trump’s Immigration Crackdown

As summer 2025 winds down, the Trump administration’s deportation machine is operating at full throttle—removing over one million people in six months and fulfilling a campaign promise to launch the “largest deportation operation in American history.” For supporters, this is a victory lap for law and order. For the rest of the lot, it’s a costly illusion—one that trades complexity for spectacle and security for chaos.

Let’s dispense with the fantasy first. The administration insists that mass deportations will save billions, reduce crime, and protect American jobs. But like most political magic tricks, the numbers vanish under scrutiny. The Economic Policy Institute warns that this policy could destroy millions of jobs—not just for immigrants but for U.S.-born workers in sectors like construction, elder care, and child care. That’s not just a fiscal cliff—it is fewer teachers, fewer caregivers, and fewer homes built. It is inflation with a human face. In fact, child care alone could shrink by over 15%, leaving working parents stranded and employers scrambling.

Meanwhile, the Peterson Institute projects a drop in GDP and employment, while the Penn Wharton School’s Budget Model estimates that deporting unauthorized workers over a decade would slash Social Security revenue and inflate deficits by nearly $900 billion. That’s not a typo. It’s a fiscal cliff dressed up as border security.

And then there’s food. Deporting farmworkers doesn’t just leave fields fallow—it drives up prices. Analysts predict a 10% spike in food costs, compounding inflation and squeezing families already living paycheck to paycheck. In California, where immigrant renters are disproportionately affected, eviction rates are climbing. The Urban Institute warns that deportations are deepening the housing crisis by gutting the construction workforce. So much for protecting American livelihoods.

But the real cost isn’t measured in dollars. It’s measured in broken families, empty classrooms, and quiet despair. The administration has deployed 10,000 armed service members to the border and ramped up “self-deportation” tactics—policies so harsh they force people to leave voluntarily. The result: Children skipping meals because their parents fear applying for food assistance; Cancer patients deported mid-treatment; and LGBTQ+ youth losing access to mental health care. The Human Rights Watch calls it a “crueler world for immigrants.” That’s putting it mildly.

This isn’t targeted enforcement. It’s a dragnet. Green card holders, long-term residents, and asylum seekers are swept up alongside undocumented workers. Viral videos show ICE raids at schools, hospitals, and churches. Lawsuits are piling up. And the chilling effect is real: immigrant communities are retreating from public life, afraid to report crimes or seek help. That’s not safety. That’s silence. Legal scholars warn that the administration’s tactics—raids at schools, churches, and hospitals—may violate Fourth Amendment protections and due process norms.

Even the administration’s security claims are shaky. Yes, border crossings are down—by about 60%, thanks to policies like “Remain in Mexico.” But deportation numbers haven’t met the promised scale. The Migration Policy Institute notes that monthly averages hover around 14,500, far below the millions touted. And the root causes of undocumented immigration—like visa overstays, which account for 60% of cases—remain untouched.

Crime reduction? Also murky. FBI data shows declines in some areas, but experts attribute this more to economic trends than immigration enforcement. In fact, fear in immigrant communities may be making things worse. When people won’t talk to the police, crimes go unreported. That’s not justice. That’s dysfunction.

Public opinion is catching up. In February, 59% of Americans supported mass deportations. By July, that number had cratered. Gallup reports a 25-point drop in favor of immigration cuts. The Pew Research Center finds that 75% of Democrats—and a growing number of independents—think the policy goes too far. Even Trump-friendly voices like Joe Rogan are balking, calling raids on “construction workers and gardeners” a betrayal of common sense.

On social media, the backlash is swift. Users on X (formerly Twitter) call the policy “ineffective,” “manipulative,” and “theater.” And they’re not wrong. This isn’t about solving immigration. It’s about staging a show—one where fear plays the villain and facts are the understudy.

The White House insists this is what voters wanted. But a narrow electoral win isn’t a blank check for policies that harm the economy and fray the social fabric. Alternatives exist: Targeted enforcement focused on violent offenders; visa reform to address overstays; and legal pathways to fill labor gaps. These aren’t radical ideas—they’re pragmatic ones. And they don’t require tearing families apart to work.

Trump’s deportation blitz is a mirage. It promises safety but delivers instability. It claims to protect jobs but undermines the very sectors that keep the country running. It speaks the language of law and order but acts with the recklessness of a demolition crew. Alternatives exist—and they work. Cities that focus on community policing and legal pathways report higher public safety and stronger economies. Reform doesn’t require cruelty. It requires courage.

Keep ReadingShow less
Multi-colored speech bubbles overlapping.

Stanford’s Strengthening Democracy Challenge shows a key way to reduce political violence: reveal that most Americans reject it.

Getty Images, MirageC

In the Aftermath of Assassinations, Let’s Show That Americans Overwhelmingly Disapprove of Political Violence

In the aftermath of Charlie Kirk’s assassination—and the assassination of Minnesota state legislator Melissa Hortman only three months ago—questions inevitably arise about how to reduce the likelihood of similar heinous actions.

Results from arguably the most important study focused on the U.S. context, the Strengthening Democracy Challenge run by Stanford University, point to one straightforward answer: show people that very few in the other party support political violence. This approach has been shown to reduce support for political violence.

Keep ReadingShow less