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

​Reconsidering Agricultural Water Rights in the American Southwest

Freshly plowed farmland with rolling green hills on a clear day near Marsh Creek Road, Brentwood, California, June 10, 2025.

(Photo by Smith Collection/Gado/Getty Images)

​Reconsidering Agricultural Water Rights in the American Southwest

As the American West continues to experience a decades-long megadrought, an increasing focus has been placed on reducing water consumption, with the agricultural industry being the largest consumer.

Context

Keep ReadingShow less
The Violence We Refuse to See

Students demonstrate for stricter gun control legislation as part of a March for Our Lives rally at the Iowa state capitol building on January 08, 2024 in Des Moines, Iowa.

Getty Images, Scott Olson

The Violence We Refuse to See

The news ticker denotes yet another shooting and fire, this time at a Latter-day Saint church in Michigan. This tragic incident occurred only weeks after the massacre at Annunciation Catholic School in Minneapolis, a tragedy whose shock had barely begun to fade from public memory. Each headline was a fresh rupture in our collective psyche, each one a new entry in the ever-lengthening register of loss. I felt the same fatigue—the hollow, tightening ache of resignation. How many times can we say “not again” before the words' meaning dissipates?

America has a peculiar way of justifying sin and bearing her scars. Our country’s response to violence is not just inadequate; it is complicit. We have constructed a body politic that tolerates, even sanctifies, these acts through legislative inertia and a distorted interpretation of constitutional rights. The sacred text of our republic has become a shield for the status quo, with lawmakers and justices hiding behind its language to justify inaction. Leaders at every level offer only platitudes, as if thoughts and prayers could bind wounds that legislation refuses to heal.

Keep ReadingShow less
Fear of AI Makes for Bad Policy
Getty Images

Fear of AI Makes for Bad Policy

Fear is the worst possible response to AI. Actions taken out of fear are rarely a good thing, especially when it comes to emerging technology. Empirically-driven scrutiny, on the other hand, is a savvy and necessary reaction to technologies like AI that introduce great benefits and harms. The difference is allowing emotions to drive policy rather than ongoing and rigorous evaluation.

A few reminders of tech policy gone wrong, due, at least in part, to fear, helps make this point clear. Fear is what has led the US to become a laggard in nuclear energy, while many of our allies and adversaries enjoy cheaper, more reliable energy. Fear is what explains opposition to autonomous vehicles in some communities, while human drivers are responsible for 120 deaths per day, as of 2022. Fear is what sustains delays in making drones more broadly available, even though many other countries are tackling issues like rural access to key medicine via drones.

Keep ReadingShow less