Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories

First ranked-choice presidential vote will be in Maine this fall, state's top court decides

Maine voting
filo/Getty Images

There is no more doubt: Ranked-choice voting will be used for the first time in a presidential election this year.

Voters in Maine will be allowed to list their candidates in order of preference, and its four electoral votes will only be awarded to those who get a majority's support, under a decision Tuesday from the state Supreme Court.

The ruling is a huge symbolic victory for advocates of ranked elections, who view them as a magic formula for improving democracy by reducing the major parties' influence, encouraging more consensus-building campaigns, promoting the prospects of outsiders — and guaranteeing winners can claim a mandate because they have been endorsed by most voters.


The justices unanimously rejected the state Republican Party's efforts to force a referendum in November on the future of so-called RCV in the state, the first to use the system in contests for many state offices and Congress. Under Maine's rules for a "people's veto," getting that measure on the 2020 ballot would have automatically prevented RCV's application in the contest among President Trump, former Vice President Joe Biden and three minor-party candidates.

Now, voters will be allowed to rank all of them. If no one is the top choice on most ballots, the candidate with the fewest No. 1 votes will be dropped and their votes will be redistributed to the No. 2 choices — that process continuing in a series of computer-driven runoffs until one of them (presumably Trump or Biden) has garnered majority backing.

Maine already does things differently. It's one of two states, with Nebraska, that awards two electoral votes to the statewide winner and one vote to the person who prevails in each House district.

Trump narrowly carried the rural 2nd District in 2016, but at first blush his chances of repeating that look to go down because of the use of RCV. Two years ago, the Republican holding that congressional seat secured the most first place votes but was defeated after the instant runoff system redistributed most of the ballots of the lesser candidates to Democrat Jared Golden.

Critics say the system is needlessly complex and can disenfranchise voters who don't understand it.

Maine's high court concluded the GOP had not gathered enough valid signatures on its ballot petitions, siding with Democratic Secretary of State Matt Dunlap, who had tossed out several thousand of the 67,00 names submitted this summer.

Acting two weeks after ballots with RCV for president started rolling off the presses, the justices reversed a lower court, which said the Republicans had met their burdenwith 22 signatures to spare. The issue in the case was a narrow one — whether two of the petition circulators were required to be registered voters in the town where they were doing their canvassing. The high court said yes.

"This is a powerful moment for ranked-choice voting supporters," Rob Richie of FairVote, one of the most prominent RCV advocacy groups, exalted after the court decision. "America was founded on the promise that your vote matters. We haven't always lived up to that promise, but over time, our nation's citizens strived to ensure that every vote counts."

The ruling puts Maine on course to rely on rankings in its presidential primaries starting in 2024. This year the Democrats used RCV in five presidential primaries and caucuses.

The number of cities using ranked-choice voting has more than doubled in the past decade and will be used to choose the mayor of New York next year. Voters in Alaska and Massachusetts will decide in November whether their states will also use RCV almost exclusively in the future.


Read More

A close up of a person's hands typing on a laptop.

As AI reshapes the labor market, workers must think like entrepreneurs. Explore skills gaps, apprenticeships, and policy reforms shaping the future of work.

Getty Images, Maria Korneeva

We’re All Entrepreneurs Now: Learning, Pivoting, and Thriving the Age of AI

What do a recent grad, a disenchanted employee, and a parent returning to the workforce all have in common? They’re each trying to determine which skills are in demand and how they can convince employers that they are competent in those fields. This is easier said than done.

Recent grads point to transcripts lined with As to persuade firms that they can add value. Firms, well aware of grade inflation, may scoff.

Keep ReadingShow less
How to Break the ‘Rage Bait’ Cycle and Restore Trust in U.S. Democracy
Young woman talking on phone at laptop desk.
Photo by Vitaly Gariev on Unsplash

How to Break the ‘Rage Bait’ Cycle and Restore Trust in U.S. Democracy

Recently, Oxford University Press chose its word of the year for 2025: “rage bait.” For those who don’t know, it’s defined as “online content deliberately designed to elicit anger or outrage by being frustrating, provocative, or offensive.” Rage bait is also the driving force behind one of the most powerful industries in the United States: social media. It has become a debasement of the American media establishment, though a key piece of federal law could help alleviate the issue.

First, the prevalence and scale of rage bait should be established. Though rage bait lacks a precise definition, by combining anecdotally available information about its popularity with social media algorithms that reward such popularity, it can be inferred that there is quite a lot of rage bait out there. Numerous studies, including research from Yale and the University of Chicago, among others, have found that posts that provoke anger and outrage are more likely to be interacted with (i.e., liked, commented on, replied to, etc.) and to remain visible for longer periods, leading social media algorithms to increasingly recommend this content. This creates an environment for the creator that equates rage bait with success; for them, the more outrageous the content, the more likes, shares, and follows it gets, which encourages even more outrageous content. In addition, creators themselves can profit from rage bait if they gain enough of a following. This is how politics is becoming increasingly polarized, especially in teenagers' minds, whose brains are malleable and are exposed to the most rage bait. Social media companies also reap the benefits of uncontrolled online rage; it keeps people on the platforms longer and more often, creating more opportunities for advertisement, which naturally means more cash flowing into the coffers. Once the mainstream media discovered that rage bait created larger profits, they seized the opportunity. Researchers in New Zealand have found that the number of headlines that induce anger, disgust, fear, and sadness has increased in recent years, while joyful or neutral headlines have been steadily decreasing. Teenagers especially have borne the brunt of the negative impacts of social media, with rates of depression and anxiety skyrocketing, according to a study in the Journal of Adolescent Health. The result of all of this is both simple and depressing: Americans generally feel worse about themselves, those around them, and their government.

Keep ReadingShow less
Avoiding Top 2 Primary Lockouts, Promoting Our Vote, Timely Links
A pole with a sign that says polling station
Photo by Phil Hearing on Unsplash

Avoiding Top 2 Primary Lockouts, Promoting Our Vote, Timely Links

Welcome to the latest edition of The Expand Democracy 3, written this week by Rob Richie with the support of Eveline Dowling and Nivea Krishnan. Every two weeks, we highlight promising pro-democracy ideas and local, national, and global news.

#1. Deep Dive - How California Democrats Could Avoid Top Two Primary Lockouts

The last 5 California governor polls show 2 Republicans ahead. Source: NY Times

Keep ReadingShow less
Trust in Elections Starts at the County Office
person holding white and blue round plastic container
Photo by Manny Becerra on Unsplash

Trust in Elections Starts at the County Office

Two people have been killed in Minneapolis during a confrontation tied to federal immigration enforcement. The state government is resisting the federal government. Citizens are in the streets. Friends of mine who grew up in countries that experienced civil conflict have started texting me, pointing out patterns they recognize.

I don't know how Minnesota will resolve. But I know what it represents: a growing number of Americans do not trust that our disputes can be settled through legitimate institutions. When that trust disappears, force fills the vacuum. This is the context in which we must think about the 2026 elections.

Keep ReadingShow less