Good grief, I am tired of the letters in favor of ranked-choice voting. All but one have made no claim to better government while offering the supposition that candidates might be less combative. Otherwise, the objective is getting someone in office with over 50 percent of the vote. Never mind that only 38 percent of those eligible to vote favored ranked-choice voting in 2016.

This whole issue is about revenge; the party that lost to Paul LePage twice has to do something to avenge the losses and somehow, ranked-choice voting is supposed to be the answer.

The do-something mentality is typical of the liberal and emotional mind while the problem remains. They did not present a candidate with a compelling message, twice, and they lost twice. So, they say, let’s fix the system instead of addressing the problem.

Generally, I favor change. Experimentation can be good. However in this case, the change is being driven by the left exclusively, with out-of-state money recently from a donor in New York ($100,000) and Massachusetts ($10,000), and in 2016, $50,000 from Texas, all donors to liberal causes.

Why do they care? What do they know that we don’t? What is their real game here? The Chamberlain Project political action committee (formed to support the 2016 ranked-choice ballot question) was headed by a principal of Smart Campaigns, which organizes to elect clients, primarily liberals, including Angus King. Fine.

It is fine to organize and use data to promote something, but there are three easy reasons to vote “no” on ranked-choice voting. One, the problem is lack of candidates who win for the left; two, there is nothing about ranked-choice voting that makes for better government, and three, the killer for me is the out-of-state money. I am voting “no” on ranked-choice voting.

Brian C. Jones

Gorham

Copy the Story Link