Skip to content
Project 2025
Search

Latest Stories

Top Stories
What You Should Know About Russ Vought, Trump’s Shadow President

What You Should Know About Russ Vought, Trump’s Shadow President

A Trump 2020 flag outside of a home.

Trump’s 2.0 Actions Have Harmed Rural America Who Voted for Him

Indiana Republicans Could Lose at the Ballot over Redistricting Plan

Indiana Republicans Could Lose at the Ballot over Redistricting Plan

Protestors holding signs that read "protect trans kids."

Trump's Orders Threaten Transgender Americans’ Rights

Trump Declares War on Democratic Cities

Trump Declares War on Democratic Cities

Maine first to approve ranked-choice voting for presidential general election

Hillary Clinton

Had ranked-choice voting been used in Maine in 2016, Hillary Clinton would not necessarily have carried the state.

Joe Raedle/Getty Images
Bill Theobald
By Bill TheobaldSep 09, 2019
Bill Theobald

Bill Theobald is senior writer at The Fulcrum, where he focuses on everything to do with voting. This December marks his 40th anniversary in the business, and he still believes -- now more than ever -- that the glow from great journalism can truly light the world.

See More Writings by author

Mainers will be the first voters in the country to use ranked-choice voting in a presidential general election, after Gov. Janet Mills announced she would accept legislation allowing the new system.

Mills, a Democrat, announced Friday that she would permit a bill passed during a special legislative session in August to become law without her signature. But she said it would not take effect until after the 2020 Democratic primary.

By delaying the law's start date, Mills said she was hoping the Maine legislature would appropriate additional funds and take whatever other steps are needed for its implementation. One outlet reported the cost would be about $100,000.

"My experience with ranked-choice voting is that it gives voters a greater voice and it encourages civility among campaigns and candidates at a time when such civility is sorely needed," Mills said in a statement. "At the same time, there are serious questions about the cost and logistics of ranked-choice voting, including collecting and transporting ballots from more than 400 towns in the middle of winter."

Under ranked-choice voting, citizens place their choices in order of preference. If no candidate wins outright with a majority of No. 1 ballots, the candidate with the lowest number of top-choice is eliminated and his or her votes are allocated based on the second choices of those voters. The process continues until a candidate has a majority.

Supporters say the system provides a better reflection of voters' desires and tamps down negative campaigning because candidates may not be a voter's top choice but could be their second or third. Opponents say it's confusing and subject to abuse.

Ranked-choice voting could have had an impact in the 2016 presidential race in Maine because Democrat Hillary Clinton received 48 percent of the vote compared to Republican Donald Trump's 45 percent. Libertarian Gary Johnson received 5 percent and Green Party candidate Jill Stein earned 2 percent. Because no one received a majority, at least Stein's supporters would have had their votes redistributed.

Maine became the first to pass statewide ranked-choice voting in 2016, and its application resulted in Democrat Jared Golden ousting GOP Rep. Bruce Poliquin when minor-party candidates' second choice votes were redistributed.

Ranked-choice voting is now available in more than a dozen cities, including San Francisco and Minneapolis. A campaign to bring it to Florida, or at least Jacksonville, is getting underway soon.

Latest news

"Vote Here" sign
Electoral Reforms

Election Reform Turns Down the Temperature of Our Politics

Rediscovered 1945 Speech on Interfaith Unity Offers Urgent Lessons
Community

Rediscovered 1945 Speech on Interfaith Unity Offers Urgent Lessons

When the Lights Go Out — and When They Never Do
Media & Technology

When the Lights Go Out — and When They Never Do

Read More

U.S. President Barack Obama speaking on the phone in the Oval Office.

U.S. President Barack Obama talks President Barack Obama talks with President Hamid Karzai of Afghanistan during a phone call from the Oval Office on November 2, 2009 in Washington, DC.

Getty Images, The White House

‘Obama, You're 15 Years Too Late!’

The mid-decade redistricting fight continues, while the word “hypocrisy” has become increasingly common in the media.

The origin of mid-decade redistricting dates back to the early history of the United States. However, its resurgence and legal acceptance primarily stem from the Texas redistricting effort in 2003, a controversial move by the Republican Party to redraw the state's congressional districts, and the 2006 U.S. Supreme Court decision in League of United Latin American Citizens v. Perry. This decision, which confirmed that mid-decade redistricting is not prohibited by federal law, was a significant turning point in the acceptance of this practice.

Keep ReadingShow less
Hand of a person casting a ballot at a polling station during voting.

Gerrymandering silences communities and distorts elections. Proportional representation offers a proven path to fairer maps and real democracy.

Getty Images, bizoo_n

Gerrymandering Today, Gerrymandering Tomorrow, Gerrymandering Forever

In 1963, Alabama Governor George Wallace declared, "Segregation now, segregation tomorrow, segregation forever." (Watch the video of his speech.) As a politically aware high school senior, I was shocked by the venom and anger in his voice—the open, defiant embrace of systematic disenfranchisement, so different from the quieter racism I knew growing up outside Boston.

Today, watching politicians openly rig elections, I feel that same disbelief—especially seeing Republican leaders embrace that same systematic approach: gerrymandering now, gerrymandering tomorrow, gerrymandering forever.

Keep ReadingShow less
An oversized ballot box surrounded by people.

Young people worldwide form new parties to reshape politics—yet America’s two-party system blocks them.

Getty Images, J Studios

No Country for Young Politicians—and How To Fix That

In democracies around the world, young people have started new political parties whenever the establishment has sidelined their views or excluded them from policymaking. These parties have sometimes reinvigorated political competition, compelled established parties to take previously neglected issues seriously, or encouraged incumbent leaders to find better ways to include and reach out to young voters.

In Europe, a trio in their twenties started Volt in 2017 as a pan-European response to Brexit, and the party has managed to win seats in the European Parliament and in some national legislatures. In Germany, young people concerned about climate change created Klimaliste, a party committed to limiting global warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius, as per the Paris Agreement. Although the party hasn’t won seats at the federal level, they have managed to win some municipal elections. In Chile, leaders of the 2011 student protests, who then won seats as independent candidates, created political parties like Revolución Democrática and Convergencia Social to institutionalize their movements. In 2022, one of these former student leaders, Gabriel Boric, became the president of Chile at 36 years old.

Keep ReadingShow less
How To Fix Gerrymandering: A Fair-Share Rule for Congressional Redistricting

Demonstrators gather outside of The United States Supreme Court during an oral arguments in Gill v. Whitford to call for an end to partisan gerrymandering on October 3, 2017 in Washington, DC

Getty Images, Olivier Douliery

How To Fix Gerrymandering: A Fair-Share Rule for Congressional Redistricting

The natural progress of things is for liberty to yield, and government to gain ground. ~ Thomas Jefferson, Letter to Col. Edward Carrington, Paris, 27 May 1788

The Problem We Face

The U.S. House of Representatives was designed as the chamber of Congress most directly tethered to the people. Article I of the Constitution mandates that seats be apportioned among the states according to population and that members face election every two years—design features meant to keep representatives responsive to shifting public sentiment. Unlike the Senate, which prioritizes state sovereignty and representation, the House translates raw population counts into political voice: each House district is to contain roughly the same number of residents, ensuring that every citizen’s vote carries comparable weight. In principle, then, the House serves as the nation’s demographic mirror, channeling the diverse preferences of the electorate into lawmaking and acting as a safeguard against unresponsive or oligarchic governance.

Nationally, the mismatch between the overall popular vote and the partisan split in House seats is small, with less than a 1% tilt. But state-level results tell a different story. Take Connecticut: Democrats hold all five seats despite Republicans winning over 40% of the statewide vote. In Oklahoma, the inverse occurs—Republicans control every seat even though Democrats consistently earn around 40% of the vote.

Keep ReadingShow less
© Copyright 2025