Though I seldom agree with Sen. Susan Collins about anything, I agree with her recent statement objecting to ranked-choice voting: that the candidate with the most votes may not win. (She has no qualms about the last presidential election, where the candidate with nearly 3 million more popular votes than the “winner” lost the election.)

If you really can’t bear the thought that the second-, third- or fourth-choice candidate might win, then you could vote only for your first choice. This is the same as not having ranked-choice voting.

A runoff election would be much more fair. Ranked-choice voting defenders cite the high cost of a runoff election and claim voters would not turn out. Well, I would, because I’d have the opportunity to vote for my preferred candidate again, and if she were elected, she would do so with first-choice votes only.

As to the cost of a runoff, why don’t we compare the cost of the present Jared Golden-Bruce Poliquin recount to the estimated cost of a runoff election? As we watch ballots being picked up in every town and district, then trucked to Augusta, the hiring of many more counters for many more days, we wonder which would cost more: the ranked-choice recount or a runoff election.

Poliquin has already stated that if he doesn’t win, he’ll pick up his marbles and request a rematch. Maybe we should take him up on it.

Janet Carper

Cornish

Copy the Story Link