Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories

Debut of ranked voting for president survives in Maine

Maine lighthouse

Maine is at the forefront of efforts to make ranked voting the national norm. The GOP is fighting that.

Kenneth C. Zirkel/Getty Images

Maine will be the first state to use ranked-choice voting in a presidential election, because the Republican Party's attempt to block the alternative voting method has failed.

Secretary of State Matt Dunlap announced Wednesday that a petition drive to block the use of RCV for president this fall had come up 2,000 signatures short of the 63,000 ultimately required.

That amounts to a significant symbolic victory for those who view ranking elections as one of the best ways to bolster democracy, because the system tends to reduce partisan polarization and reward centrist candidates. Mainers have been in the vanguard of the effort to expand use of RCV, adopting it for virtually all contests four years ago and implementing it statewide in 2018, despite a handful of legal and legislative challenges.


Last month, when ballot petitions were due for submission, the state Republican Party reported it had collected 72,000 signatures. But state officials tossed 11,000 of them because they were not properly certified by the registrar or were duplicative.

But Maine GOP Chairwoman Demi Kouzounas said the fight is not over. "It is abundantly clear" that the secretary of state, a Democrat, "used every trick in the book to throw out enough signatures through a litany of technicalities to keep this question off the ballot," Kouzounas said.

Sufficient signatures would have ordered a referendum in November on whether to use ranked voting in future presidential contests — and suspended the use of the system this time.

Under RCV, voters rank as many candidates for each office as they like in order of preference. If no one is ranked on top of most ballots, the person with the fewest No. 1 votes is eliminated and those ballots are redistributed to the second-choice candidates. That process repeats in a series of "instant runoffs" until one candidates breaks the 50 percent threshold.

Had the petition drive succeeded, the state's four electoral votes would have been awarded to either President Trump or former Vice President Joe Biden — even if neither has majority support, and without regard to whom supporters of third-party candidates would prefer as a backup.

Republican opposition to RCV has only grown as the voting method has gained more traction across the country. Conservatives were particularly up in arms about it two years ago, after GOP incumbent Bruce Poliquin lost in Maine's 2nd congressional district to Democrat Jared Golden.

Tuesday's three-way GOP primary to nominate Golden's opponent is now in limbo until election officials redistribute the 23 percent of ballots where the last-place finisher was the top choice.

The system's likeliest impact on the presidential race is in that same district. For the past half-century Maine has been unusual in awarding one electoral vote to the winner of each House district and two votes to the statewide victor. Biden can probably count on three votes, but Trump has a shot in the 2nd District (he won it four years ago) if no instant runoff is required.

RCV could also shape the tossup Senate race between GOP incumbent Susan Collins and her Democratic challenger, state House Speaker Sara Gideon.


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