Why the Maine Ranked Choice Voting (RCV) Referendum is One of the Most Important Votes of the Year

The United States Constitution is presently the oldest written constitution still in use, predating the constitutions of the Kingdoms of the Netherlands and Norway by a few decades. That Constitution is rightly revered as one of the first comprehensive and formal outlines for a modern republican state, as well as for the Bill of Rights, the foundation for the legal defense of American liberty. The framers deftly created a balanced system with several clearly apportioned powers and some vague spaces that allowed the branches to compete and restrain one another while shifting to meet the needs of the time. They also successfully built a system that appeased all of the states, big and small, rural and urban (and, tragically, slave and free) enough to earn approval. The fact that this fundamental system survives today is a testament to the care and thoughtfulness with which it was created.

Of course, the constitution was built to change, either through the amendment system or through shifts in areas not clearly laid out in the constitution. One process that has seen significant change is the electoral process. The most significant changes have been the expansion of the franchise and the direct election of presidential electors and senators. Rules have also been established to protect voting rights to insure that the right to vote is not infringed formally or informally. The struggle over voting rights and processes continues today, largely outside of constitutional considerations. Generally speaking, though, the fundamentals of our elections remain firmly tied to the Constitution.

It may be surprising to Americans, then, who have borne witness over the generations to this remarkable constitutional continuity, that many nations, even stable western republics and constitutional monarchies, have altered the way they elect their governments fairly recently. Japan established its new Mixed Member Majoritarian system just in the 1990’s, for example, and the Parliament of Scotland was only reconvened (using a Mixed Member Proportional system, radically different from the parliament of the United Kingdom) in 1997. The Australian Senate has been elected in a number of different ways since the beginning of the 20th century, with the most recent changes taking place this year.

The American voter who is, for example, confused by the electoral college and wondering what exact purpose it serves, might be jealous that these other states seem willing to change their procedures when they no longer serve the needs of the electorate or are shown to be outdated. They might, for example, look on with jealousy at what happened after the 1918 Swan by election in Australia.

After the death of a Member of the House of Representatives of Australia, an election was called to fill the seat. At the time, House of Representatives elections in Australia were conducted with procedures similar to those used in the United States. The ideologically aligned Country party candidate and Nationalist party candidate split their votes, and the Labor party candidate was elected, despite representing a minority political viewpoint in the area.

In response to the result, the government passed a simple reform which has governed all House of Representative elections since — they instituted Ranked Choice Voting (RCV), referred to in the Australian context as Instant Runoff Voting (IRV) and also known as the Alternative Vote (AV). The system is quite simple: Voters do not simply select one candidate but instead rank their choices. When no candidate in an election receives more than half of the votes on the first preferences, the lowest vote getter is eliminated and his or her votes are reapportioned to second choices. The process is continued until a candidate has more than half the votes and is thus declared the winner.

This situation might sound quite familiar to Maine voters, who saw a Republican candidate for Governor initially gain office after the ideologically similar independent and Democratic candidates split votes. Voters might conclude, as the Australian government did all those years ago, that the electoral system has failed to accurately represent the voters’ preferences. On that basis, a change is appropriate. It has been several years coming, but finally the RCV option will be on the ballot this fall.

RCV is just a small, incremental step from our current Single Member District Plurality (SMDP) system, however. It is still not generally classed as a “proportional” system, and although it provides the possibility for people to choose third choices without sabotaging themselves by inadvertently helping their ideological opposite, it is still likely to lead to an institutional two party system, as has persisted in the Australian House. Interestingly, the United States has had a hand in the formation of numerous constitutions besides its own over the years, and SMDP and even RCV as proposed in Maine do not figure in them often. One of the most recent examples — Iraq — was created through a collaborative process involving the United States, and uses a fully proportional system. Of course, the United States has not recommended the absurd electoral college to new democracies.

Legislatures should be elected in a way that allows a wide variety of views and interests, and the general consensus among new democracies has been that proportional electoral systems do this the best. The abundant dissatisfaction with the congress and indeed with government as a whole throughout the United States suggests that perhaps the time has come for a change.

If Maine votes for RCV this fall, it will be the first state to institute an electoral reform of this kind. Of significant importance to Maine and its independents and third parties, Maine voters will now be able to vote based on their own preferences without aiding those they do not support. They will be able to support a more pluralistic and diverse Maine political scene, one that is not limited to the two traditional parties. Of national, importance, however, Maine’s switch to RCV could open the American political discourse, helping to nurture a new movement of ‘small d’ democrats committed not to any one ideology or interest group but to the principle of democracy and representation. This new movement and new conversation must be nurtured, and will open new options for electoral reform that could lead to a more diverse American legislative population that represents a wider range of views, taking America away from the swing state focused electoral college and away from the perpetual war of the two parties and toward an inclusive, varied, and collaboration-focused politics.

If you want to live in a nation whose politics is inclusive and representative, if you want to break the deadlock of our two party system and ensure voters’ preferences are honored, then you should take the first step of supporting RCV in Maine, or indeed in your own home state.