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.
A golden tray sits on the Resolute Desk as President Donald Trump speaks during an announcement on American nuclear innovation in the Oval Office at the White House on July 24, 2026, in Washington, D.C. Trump is signing multiple executive orders targeting the nuclear energy sector and easing rules for new reactors and nuclear fuel supply chains.
Trump’s hubris rivals the fallen heroes of ancient Greek mythology
In January, the New York Times asked President Donald Trump if there were any limits on his global powers.
“Yeah,” the president responded, “there is one thing. My own morality. My own mind. It’s the only thing that can stop me.”
That was eight months ago, but fortunately Christopher Nolan’s blockbuster adaptation of “The Odyssey” has made ancient Greek literature newly relevant. Before that window closes, I’d like to talk about hubris.
Today, the term mostly means excessive pride or arrogance. That’s part of what the Greeks meant by it too, but the meaning was a bit richer and more specific. Hubris was an insolent or outrageous act that offended the gods, often because the transgressor was claiming abilities or authorities that solely belonged to supreme beings.
Nolan renamed and slightly modified the concept of xenia for the film, calling it “Zeus’ law.” In the director’s telling, mortals should follow the rules laid out by the gods, specifically the requirement to treat strangers with respect lest they be gods in disguise.
In a sense, hubris is the opposite, or at least the rejection, of xenia. The hubris of the suitors, and at times Odysseus himself, invites punishment by the gods and their mortal instruments.
Which brings me back to Donald Trump. His claim that there are no constraints on his personal power to dictate events on the global stage was one of the greatest expressions of hubris ever uttered by a political leader.
Trump’s claim was obviously false when he made it.
He vowed that he could end the Russia-Ukraine war in 24 hours. He’s proved powerless to make that happen. If he had divine powers to work his will, why would he have balked at implementing his tariffs so often that Wall Street adopted the “TACO trade” term for his deals? “TACO” stands for “Trump always chickens out.”
And why would Trump have made so many embarrassing concessions to China — from rescinding tariffs on Chinese goods to allowing them to buy crucial and incredibly valuable computer chips?
But Trump saw his success at capturing Venezuelan strongman Nicolas Maduro as proof of his ability to launch missiles to the same effect as Zeus’ lightning bolts. Trump believed he was the most powerful man who ever lived.
This is no exaggeration. In March, when the Iran invasion seemed successful, Trump gave a document penned by“Presidential Historian David King” to New York Times reporters Maggie Haberman and Jonathan Swan purporting to prove that Trump was “the most powerful person to have EVER walked this planet.” King was, in fact, a businessman and occasional caddy for legendary golfer Gary Player.
King compared Trump favorably to many of history’s most powerful, and often heinous, figures: Alexander the Great, Attila the Hun, William the Conqueror, Napoleon Bonaparte, Joseph Stalin, Genghis Khan, Mao Tse Tung, Adolf Hitler and Vladimir Lenin. Many of these men thought they were the most powerful person in the world, too. And many were defeated precisely because they believed it.
At least Napoleon and Hitler had a string of truly impressive victories before they learned the folly of hubris. The limits on Trump’s power have been exposed by far less august forces than the combined might of the allies in World War II or the fearsome Russian winter.
Iran is a comparatively middling power. But the regime’s ability to absorb punishment while imposing its will on the Strait of Hormuz has proved to be a greater constraint on Trump’s power than his morality or mind. We should note that, at least rhetorically, his morality has not proved much of a constraint. He has repeatedly promised to destroy Iranian “civilization” if the regime refuses to capitulate.
But they haven’t — and won’t anytime soon — because the regime’s tolerance for pain far outstrips Trump’s. The combined fear of skyrocketing oil prices, outrage of Gulf state potentates, diminishing weapon supplies and domestic unpopularity is doing the work that international law, congressional oversight and the collective opinion of foreign policy experts can’t or won’t do.
If I considered Trump more heroic than reason and facts could allow, I would say his Sisyphean predicament has the whiff of Greek tragedy to it. Trump is vexed by the fact that the Iranians won’t honor deals or ratify his countless premature claims of victory — giving new meaning to his vow that his presidency would make people tired of winning. It’s almost like they’re out-Trumping Trump.
Things might have gone better if he’d heeded that great Greek tragedian Sophocles: “For Zeus utterly abhors the boasts of a proud tongue.”
____
Jonah Goldberg is editor-in-chief of The Dispatch and the host of The Remnant podcast. His Twitter handle is @JonahDispatch.