I am not surprised that the Republican Party is opposed to ranked-choice voting (“Top Republican assails ranked-choice voting,” April 2, Page B3).
The end result of ranked-choice is a winner with a majority vote, and that makes their style of divisive politics impossible. If you can rule with a minority, you can afford to drive wedges and shatter the common purpose of the country. Whoever leads the town, county, state or country should have a majority of the people in support, not as a desired polling number but a requirement for office.
Runoff or instant runoff – it doesn’t matter. Either way, people get two chances to vote. The important thing is the majority. Ranked-choice would be quicker in practice if the machines in the towns were designed and programmed for it. It isn’t a black box and can indeed be done on a single piece of paper once the counts are in.
Runoff elections are clear and decisive, for sure. They give people time to think and muster support. They also cost a lot of money.
But majority rule has its problems if you are just holding on to power. So, I guess I understand. But I challenge U.S. House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy: If you want a fair fight, how about one you actually have to win?
Robert Sessums
North Yarmouth
Copy the Story LinkSend questions/comments to the editors.
Success. Please wait for the page to reload. If the page does not reload within 5 seconds, please refresh the page.
Enter your email and password to access comments.
Hi, to comment on stories you must . This profile is in addition to your subscription and website login.
Already have a commenting profile? .
Invalid username/password.
Please check your email to confirm and complete your registration.
Only subscribers are eligible to post comments. Please subscribe or login first for digital access. Here’s why.
Use the form below to reset your password. When you've submitted your account email, we will send an email with a reset code.