Maine’s upcoming primary election quickly advances upon our collective preparedness to participate. Ready or not, on Tuesday June 12 anyone willing and able to vote gets to do so. Voter fitness varies greatly, yet whether hardly informed or totally savvy each of us gets to fill out a ballot and the democratic deed’s a done deal. Then, after all bets are in and all cards revealed, as the expression goes in far less important crap-shoots in judgment: “Read ‘em and weep.” Complaints of November’s general election offerings can hardly be seriously entertained from those willfully absent from legally condoned preemptive decision making.

All election outcomes, pleasing or not, are likely as much a matter of an achieved consensus as they are the chance result of a perpetually media-skewed political roulette wheel. When the chips are finally down, what people actually decide when alone in the confidentiality of the voting booth might come as a surprise even to themselves. I once found myself voting for Jock McKernan and still have difficulty figuring out how that possibly came about.

These days, gamesmanship and participatory tampering are expected and accepted realities to either combat or embrace, or to simply throw up one’s hands in opting out. In the last midterm election voter turnout nationwide was the lowest since 1940. Maine, however, distinguished itself by having the highest turnout with a whopping 59.3% of total voters bothering to weigh in on giving Paul LePage a second chance. Then again, there was that ballot question about bear hunting.

For some, getting out the vote is paramount, no matter how that ultimately turns out. For others voter suppression is key towards gaming the system to their advantage. For those devotedly proselytizing ranked choice voting, this is a sink or swim watershed moment for an untested exercise in optimism meant to invite broader democratic involvement. For all, partisanship remains a wild card in both encouraging and discouraging voter involvement.

The candidate’s tightrope walk is to reveal as much of their positions as necessary to court favor without jeopardizing their broadest possible “electability.”

So far I’ve attended two Democratic gubernatorial candidate forums and watched both a Democratic and a Republican one on television. That’s got to be a personal best regarding my own often less than keen primary election interest. Despite differences in format, all venues afforded candidates reasonable opportunity to express individual positions and motivation in running for Maine’s highest elected office. In all exchanges contenders kept gloves on, aimed above the belt when sparring and punched up their strong points rather than undercutting their opponents. Democrat or Republican, civility was obviously thought a winning strategy for at least this leg of a race still mostly confined to interparty competition. The envisioned RCV influence of moderation seems already working, at least in the primary round.

Thus far I’ve only received one candidate mailing, which took a decidedly different approach. It champions Janet Mill’s gubernatorial bid by touting her   boxing record against our pugnacious sitting governor and no-holds-barred presidency. Apparently, emulating the divisive combative playbook of LePage and Trump is thought to provide a reassuring fresh direction for Maine’s administrative leadership. Time for possible inclusiveness later, after the other side’s beaten to a pulp. No mention of her fight as Maine’s Attorney General against the Penobscot Nation’s cultural identity and tribal stewardship of the very river named for those who’ve always held indigenous sovereignty over its protection. No highlighted personal slugfest against the oppressive forces of darkness on that injustice. Her campaign promise to continue “fighting to protect Maine families, defend working people and preserve our stunning natural resources” evidently doesn’t apply to Maine’s truly native population or to honoring the previously understood legal promises made to them. At least former Democrat, and now Republican candidate for governor, Mary Mayhew clearly embodies the values professed by her current party affiliation.

Whether or not the pro-RCV veto referendum, Question 1, passes by an ironically provisional RCV use in this June’s primary, RCV will still not apply to the final Governor race in November’s general election. Whether the gubernatorial primary winners will then adopt a “go low” or “stay high” strategy after June 12 remains to be seen. The more crucial question is whether any of the candidates will risk a sufficiently conciliatory approach to reach out to and actually win over an outright majority of the electorate.

Conventional two-party wisdom has sadly embraced a race to the bottom that looks no further than its partisan base to achieve adequate victory over “Them.” That remains the true political “spoiler.” Running “Anti” campaigns simply hasn’t produced sustainable or positive leadership, at the state of federal level. Blind resistance for resistance’s sake only perpetuates vindictive politics where one side roots for the other’s catastrophic failure despite detriment to the common good.

Dark money politics has become a convenient scapegoat when ultimately it’s the voters that sell democracy short by opting out or hedging their bets. Waiting for someone else’s primary vote to narrow the field, or voting other than one’s first choice, especially within a trial RCV system, is fundamentally self-disenfranchising.

Gary Anderson lives in Bath.