Next week, Maine voters will head to the polls to consider ranked-choice voting again. For those still torn on this seemingly endless debate, I’d like to offer an argument from the field of political science.

In several papers throughout the 1950s, French sociologist Maurice Duverger observed and introduced a theory that would eventually be labeled a law of political science.

Duverger’s Law states that plurality-rule elections held in single-member districts tend to favor a two-party system of government.

“Plurality rule” is the current system that the United States and Maine use to elect leaders. The victor is the candidate who receives the most votes, regardless of whether they hold majority support.

“Single-member districts” are what our state and federal congresses use to decide how we choose who represents us. Politicians run for a single seat in a single district. The alternative is a system of proportional representation, like that used in the UK, where a party’s representation in parliament is directly proportional to the percentage of the electorate who voted for the party as a whole, instead of individual candidates.

Maine has used plurality rule with single-member districts throughout its history. However, with the continuously increasing support for third-party candidates and the proven validity of Duverger’s Law, these electoral constants are failing Maine voters.

To break Maine from the stranglehold of a two-party system, we either have to abandon the idea of single-member districts or remove plurality rule from our electoral process. Considering the massive constitutional overhaul that would be required to adopt proportional representation in our state, the easier path toward complying with Duverger’s Law and welcoming third-party voices is to adopt a majority-rule voting system. Ranked-choice voting is giving Maine voters the opportunity to do just that.

Jackson Dinsmore

Casco