‘Don’t fix what ain’t broke’

By Ken Frederic

As a teenager, I heard JFK and RFK borrow Shaw’s ‘Some men see things as they are and ask why. I dream things that never were and ask why not?’ I’ve also learned that, on the contrary, ‘Don’t fix what ain’t broke’ is just as profound. As a former engineering manager, I suppose I’m much more inclined toward the latter, having repeatedly had to clean up a mess caused by someone failing to fix a problem we didn’t have.

In November Maine voters will face five referendum questions. My default answer to any referendum question is “No”.

Why? If there is a strong case to be made, the proposal would have been sponsored before the legislature and, after testimony and research, would have been passed. All five of these referendum questions seek to bypass Legislative scrutiny and present the questions to the voters, knowing few voters have the resources, time, or interest to research the question and instead will rely on advertising, advocates, or worst of all, the wording of the question itself on the ballot.

Several of these question have repeatedly failed in the Legislature and the question of Ranked Choice Voting is one of those failed proposals. Whether approached from ‘why?’ or ‘why not?’, it deserves to have failed.

WHY?

The arguments ‘for’ ranked choice, are few and rest mainly on the premise that elections do not fairly represent the will of the people unless one candidate receives an outright majority of all votes cast. Beyond that, there are arguments that somehow ranked choice voting encourages more candidates to run, eliminates negative campaigning, eliminates primary elections, and eliminates strategic voting. Reference 1 gives these arguments specifically and in more detail. None withstand even casual scrutiny.

WHY NOT?

If you are persuaded that looking at Maine’s election system prompts dreaming of things as they should be, I recommend you move on: The rest of this will only raise your BP. On the other hand, if you’ve asked what’s wrong with our plurality system, how has it not worked, what has gone wrong, and precisely how would ranked choice voting address any of those, then it’s unlikely in the extreme that you’ve found any credible answers.

Some persistently moan that Paul LePage was illegitimately elected because, while he got more votes than either the Democrat or the Independent, he did not get more votes than both of them combined. These folks argue that more people voted against LePage than voted for him. Somehow, these folks overlook that, by that standard, their candidate fared far worse.

Others maintain that 40 percent of the voters are neither Republican nor Democrat and therefore Independents should not be faced with having to vote for one or the other. But, Independents can surely vote for the Independent, Libertarian, Green, or Communist, if that’s their choice, and defeat both the Republican and the Democrat.

Yet others offer the view that more candidates will choose to run if they don’t have to first gain the support of their party. I reject that on two counts. In the first place, there is little or no effort required to declare candidacy and discover whether your party supports you. It’s surely much less effort than campaigning. Secondly, do we really want multi-page ballots with dozens of candidates for each office.

Both references carry this further, addressing and (to my evaluation) refuting the so-called “Pro” Ranked Choice arguments.

There is a more compelling reason to oppose this proposition and it’s not that it’s plainly unconstitutional. Informed readers will recall that one party vehemently opposed removing party affiliation from ballots and even opposed (in other states) removing the “straight party” voting option. That party also opposes efforts to verify the identity of those presenting themselves at the polls. Inexplicably, that party apparently supports Ranked Choice voting.

It defies common experience to argue that people who cannot produce an ID or manage to vote without the “D” on the ballot will ever manage to vote for multiple candidates in rank order.

Perhaps it’s unfair of me to question motives but it’s undeniable that Ranked Choice gives those who support a losing candidate a second or third vote ‘against’ the remaining candidates. Ranked Choice doesn’t discourage strategic voting: It practically demands it!

I submit that Ranked Choice is at best an insidious solution chasing an imaginary problem.

Another View is a Maine Press Association award-winning column written by an individual who is a member of a group of concerned citizens who meet regularly to discuss issues of public interest.

Ken Frederic of Bristol is a member of a group of concerned Midcoast citizens who meet to discuss issues of public interest. Their weekly column “Another View” has been awarded by the Maine Press Association.