Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
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

Paul Ehrlich was wrong about everything

Crowd of people walking on a street.

Andy Andrews//Getty Images

Paul Ehrlich was wrong about everything

Biologist and author Paul Ehrlich, the most influential Chicken Little of the last century, died at the age of 93 this week. His 1968 book, “The Population Bomb,” launched decades of institutional panic in government, entertainment and journalism.

Ehrlich’s core neo-Malthusian argument was that overpopulation would exhaust the supply of food and natural resources, leading to a cascade of catastrophes around the world. “The Population Bomb” opens with a bold prediction, “The battle to feed all of humanity is over. In the 1970s and 1980s hundreds of millions of people will starve to death in spite of any crash programs embarked upon now.”

Keep ReadingShow less
Bravado Isn’t a Strategy: Why the Iran War Has No Endgame

People clear rubble in a house in the Beryanak District after it was damaged by missile attacks two days before, on March 15, 2026 in Tehran, Iran. The United States and Israel continued their joint attack on Iran that began on February 28. Iran retaliated by firing waves of missiles and drones at Israel, and targeting U.S. allies in the region.

Getty Images, Majid Saeedi

Bravado Isn’t a Strategy: Why the Iran War Has No Endgame

Most of what we have heard from the administration as it pertains to the Iran War is swagger and bro-talk. A few days into the war, the White House released a social media video that combined footage of the bombardment with clips from video games. Not long after, it released a second video, titled “Justice the American Way,” that mixed images of the U.S. military with scenes from movies like Gladiator and Top Gun Maverick.

Speaking to reporters at the Pentagon, War Secretary Pete Hegseth boasted of “death and destruction from the sky all day long.” “They are toast, and they know it,” he said. “This was never meant to be a fair fight... we are punching them while they’re down.”

Keep ReadingShow less
A student in uniform walking through a campus.

A Reserve Officer Training Corps (ROTC) cadet walks through campus November 7, 2003 in Princeton, New Jersey.

Getty Images, Spencer Platt

Hegseth is Dumbing Down the Military (on Purpose)

One day before the United States began an ill-defined and illegal war of indefinite length with Iran, Pete Hegseth angrily attacked a different enemy: the Ivy League. The Secretary of War denounced Ivy League universities as "woke breeding grounds of toxic indoctrination” and then eliminated long-standing college fellowship programs with more than a dozen elite colleges, which had historically served as a pipeline for service members to the upper ranks of military leadership. Of the schools now on Hegseth’s "no-fly list," four sit in the top ten of the World’s Top Universities for 2026. So, why does the Secretary of War not want his armed forces to have the best education available? Because he wants a military without a brain.

For a guy obsessed with being the strongest and most lethal force in the world, cutting access to world-class schools is a bizarre gambit. It does reveal Hegseth doesn’t consider intelligence a factor–let alone an asset–in strength or lethality. That tracks. Hegseth alleges the Ivies infect officers with “globalist and radical ideologies that do not improve our fighting ranks…” God forbid the tip of the sword of our foreign policy has knowledge of international cooperation and global interconnectedness. The Ivy League has its own issues, but the Pentagon’s claim that they "fail to deliver rigorous education grounded in realism” is almost laughable. I’m a veteran Lieutenant Commander with two Ivy League degrees, both paid for with military tuition assistance, and I promise: it was rigorous. Meanwhile, are Hegseth’s performative politics grounded in reality? Attacking Harvard on social media the eve of initiating a new war with a foreign adversary is disgraceful, and even delusional.

Keep ReadingShow less
Are We Prepared for a World Where AI Isn’t at Work?
Person working at a desk with a laptop and books.

Are We Prepared for a World Where AI Isn’t at Work?

Draft an important email without using AI. Write it from scratch — no suggestions, no autocomplete, and no prompt to ChatGPT to compose or revise the email.

Now ask yourself: Did it feel slower? Harder? Slightly uncomfortable?

Keep ReadingShow less