Here we go again, limping with scissors towards another election.

They say that those that forget the past are doomed to repeat it. Or is it those that ignore the past that invite unwanted repetition? Whatever the case, we never seem to stop making the same mistakes because when push comes to shove we’re all conservatives in our own way. Most of us want things to remain the same as long as we can cherry pick which ones. We want change mostly meaning we want others to change. Most of us are creatures of habit addicted to the belief that a square peg will fit into a round hole if we just one more time deny that it won’t.

There’s a difference between insistence and denial. I can remember a time when both sides of the aisle held beliefs insisting to be undeniably right. And if they were right then the opposition was wrong, but there was a basic optimism that rightness would win out and that if their way was made the way then everything would come together and the opposition would finally be won over. Not beaten to a pulp, but converted.

Now neither side of the political divide holds any hope of proselytizing their entrenched positions. Liberals are just as adamant in maintaining an immovable line in the sand as those so bitterly deemed irredeemable “deplorables.” That backfiring fighting fire with fire comprehension of leadership will remain the defining sociopolitical legacy of the now nowhere to be seen or heard of “Her” who so divisively secured the popular vote but lost nonetheless.

Ironically, her loss continues to be most upsetting to he who actually won despite his own transparent incredulity in that improbable outcome. Apparently a majority win really does mean a lot. Even to the point of making someone an endlessly sore winner. Maybe someone should tell the president that Hillary actually only got 48.2 percent of all votes cast to his 46.1 percent. If ranked choice voting had been availed who knows what might have happened?

Change is always a two-edged sword. A majority win might not necessarily provide the desired closure imagined by its proponents.

The 2016 election was anything but decisive. A year and a half later its tumultuous outcome has all actors still improvising something approximating a coherent performance of governance. Neither side of America’s now full bore, all bridges burned, two-party impasse any longer feigns insistence that they have any real fitness to lead, even within their own ranks. Righteousness or competency is of little concern today. Proving that the other side is abjectly wrong is the all-consuming objective. Battles once fought on principle are now mere blood sport.

Somehow we’ve come to a reality where holding the reins of power no longer guarantees actual empowerment. Neither the Republican or Democrat establishment even attempts to convey a convincing allegiance to what used to be their same only different calling cards of inclusiveness, populism and idealism. Oppositional incumbency has become the be-all and end-all operative game plan on both sides. Especially as practiced in our nation’s capital.

Here in Maine we’ve endured and observed the various futility and frustration of oppositional politics, on steroids, from both the top-down and the bottom-up for near eight years. During that time our homegrown Trumpian precursor macho-manning the executive branch has steadfastly engaged in take-no-prisoners politics against the legislature and the judiciary, while a majority of the people’s representatives have repeatedly negated constituent directives even when mandated by ballot initiative overrides. Maine’s fierce anti-LePage sentiment forecasted a now nationally ubiquitous and multitasking resistance movement.

How uncompromising resistance will achieve a desperately needed measure of unity is still a work in progress.

Those Maine voters still choosing to participate have twice chosen to fundamentally change the way electoral choices are made. Now, a mostly contrived majority vote threshold is a first in the nation accepted practice statewide in primary elections and in the general election except for gubernatorial selection which will remain decided by a traditional and constitutionally specified plurality vote. Averting another plurality spoiler effect in electing our governorship was what RCV was designed to accomplish. That goal’s failure of implementation is as disappointing as the fact that when freely allowed to determine the recent gubernatorial primary race the idealized merits of ranked choice voting had no discernible influence on changing the predicted outcome of frontrunner victories in both major parties.

Progressive governance remains elusive. Notwithstanding the still resounding clarion call of 2016’s electorate dissatisfaction with traditional two-party rule, either Shawn Moody or Janet Mills will apparently be Maine’s next governor despite both of their respective conventional party platform’s fundamentally common resistance to change.

The current outrage over Russian interference in our dysfunctional self-rule would be far more righteous if America itself didn’t have such a shameful record of even more egregious meddling in foreign elections worldwide, or if more than a slim majority of our electorate actually bothered to vote.

Liberal or conservative, our patriotically fueled democratic umbrage needs to take a long hard look in the mirror.

Gary Anderson lives in Bath.