Maine ballot question #1 – June 12, 2018

37 posts / 0 new
Last post
Moving Forward
Offline
Last seen: 1 hour 6 min ago
Joined: 12/27/2005 - 7:35pm
Maine ballot question #1 – June 12, 2018

They seem to do it almost every year, and Question #1 on the June 12th ballot is no exception... so please don’t get fooled by the odd wording of this ballot question.

In fact, here’s a great information video that illustrates why Ranked Choice Voting is bad for Mainers
and why we should be sure to ‘Vote No for Question 1’ on June 12, 2018:

See https://yt2fb.com/see-how-ranked-choice-voting-really-works-here/

For more details: https://www.facebook.com/pg/Ranked-Choice-No-1710933105829748/posts/?ref...

----------------------------

Don’t be fooled by the odd wording of this ballot question.

Ballot Question on June 12, 2018 Referendum Ballot

Question 1: Do you want to reject the parts of a new law that would delay the use of ranked-choice voting in the election of candidates for any state or federal office until 2022, and then retain the method only if the constitution is amended by December 1, 2021, to allow ranked-choice voting for candidates in state elections?

Source: http://www.maine.gov/sos/cec/elec/upcoming/index.html


Source: http://cdn.rightmi.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/no-on-one.jpg

Melvin Udall
Offline
Last seen: 11 hours 11 min ago
Joined: 05/01/2002 - 12:01am
The wording of this really

The wording of this really pissed me off, but on a second reading, it became clear that NO was the correct vote.

Al Amoling
Offline
Last seen: 14 hours 49 min ago
Joined: 07/07/2004 - 12:01am
I never saw the original

I never saw the original petition that developed into this referendum but I've heard that Mutt Dunlap wrote both the petition and the referendum question. Too bad Mutt din't question the legality of the original petition.

anonymous_coward
Offline
Last seen: 2 days 8 hours ago
Joined: 10/21/2016 - 12:18pm
It should be illegal to word

It should be illegal to word a question like this. I mean seriously.

mainemom
Offline
Last seen: 16 hours 27 min ago
Joined: 03/09/2004 - 1:01am
Could have made it clearer

Could have made it clearer this way:
Do you want to reject the parts of a new law that would 1) delay the use of ranked-choice voting in the election of candidates for any state or federal office until 2022; and 2) retain the method only if the constitution is amended by December 1, 2021, to allow ranked-choice voting for candidates in state elections?

Al Amoling
Offline
Last seen: 14 hours 49 min ago
Joined: 07/07/2004 - 12:01am
Clear to me would have been.

Clear to me would have been. "do you want to reject RCV?' y or n

Melvin Udall
Offline
Last seen: 11 hours 11 min ago
Joined: 05/01/2002 - 12:01am
Agreed, Al. mainemom's

Agreed, Al. mainemom's seemed on first read like a difference without distinction.

Matt
Offline
Last seen: 1 hour 5 min ago
Joined: 01/21/2008 - 6:21pm
the referendum should

the referendum should actually read:

“You already passed this a couple of years ago, but the asshat opposition has been dragging its feet instead of working on ways to effectively implement it. Do you want to tell—yet again—the people who supposedly represent you that this is how you’d like to cast votes going forward?”

Melvin Udall
Offline
Last seen: 11 hours 11 min ago
Joined: 05/01/2002 - 12:01am
Yeah! AMG sleaze still lives

Yeah! AMG sleaze still lives!

Matt
Offline
Last seen: 1 hour 5 min ago
Joined: 01/21/2008 - 6:21pm
Bravo, udouche.

Bravo, udouche.

Toolsmith
Offline
Last seen: 3 hours 6 min ago
Joined: 07/14/2016 - 11:22am
The question does not resolve

The question does not resolve the constitutionality of RCV. Either amend and use it, or keep it out altogether.

What happens if someone is elected using RCV, and it is later ruled unconstitutional?

In that case, Maine is going to look like the Land of the Lost...

The wording of the question is no worse than many I've seen elsewhere, but no better. Clearly intended to confuse.

Fidley
Offline
Last seen: 2 months 2 weeks ago
Joined: 10/05/2014 - 8:58am
I voted no in the original

I voted no in the original referendum not because I find RCV to be confusing and neither because it may be repugnant to the Maine Constitution (certainly for races that tome deems decided by a "plurality") but, rather, because supporters readily admit 9 out of 10 times where RCV is currently used the top vote-getter in the 1st round ultimately prevails. Throwing our incumbent process out to address only 10% of races is not worth upsetting the apple cart. The People's Veto question also does not confuse if one keeps in mind the legislative history following the original referendum. Law-makers passed, and the Governor signed, a piece of legislation that pushed implementation of RCV to a date in the future (and if the Constitution is amended). The question on June 12th is an easy one. Do you wish to veto the legislature's action? And, firmly in the category of irony, is the fact that Pingree could be the first real victim of RCV if - and this is a big if - the veto on the 12th is sustained. Ironic because liberals have lined up in support of RCV and the right flank has taken an ardent position opposed. Republicans must not forget that, if RCV survives to be used in Federal races this Fall, they get a chance to vote TWICE against Chellie.

Moving Forward
Offline
Last seen: 1 hour 6 min ago
Joined: 12/27/2005 - 7:35pm
Since the puppet masters

Since the puppet masters involved with the Forced Unionism movement support Ranked Choice Voting, that should be a clue it's bad for most Mainers!

Moving Forward
Offline
Last seen: 1 hour 6 min ago
Joined: 12/27/2005 - 7:35pm
Don't be fooled by the

Don't be fooled by the progressives and their continued word games with Question #1 on the June 12th ballot...

Matt
Offline
Last seen: 1 hour 5 min ago
Joined: 01/21/2008 - 6:21pm
If you’re like Moving Forward

If you’re like Moving Forward and want to see more pandering milquetoast establishment candidates get elected, vote no on 1.

If you woukd like to vote for interesting and independent candidates based on their ideas, without being afraid of flushing said vote down the electoral toilet, vote yes.

Mainelion
Offline
Last seen: 20 hours 15 min ago
Joined: 08/11/2005 - 12:01am
As Matt said, you people will

As Matt said, you people will learn how to vote correctly no matter what cock eyed scheme we have to come up with to force Socialism on you.

Bruce Libby
Offline
Last seen: 7 hours 27 min ago
Joined: 01/17/2006 - 7:08pm
Matt

Matt
Did you support a candidate a few years ago ,that helped form your support of RCV ?

Other words your vote was flushed down toilet .

Toolsmith
Offline
Last seen: 3 hours 6 min ago
Joined: 07/14/2016 - 11:22am
Not successful with

Not successful with gerrymandering districts?

Fiddling with the ballot is much more direct.

Matt
Offline
Last seen: 1 hour 5 min ago
Joined: 01/21/2008 - 6:21pm
Uh, which party has taken

Uh, which party has taken gerrymandering to a whole new repulsive level these last few years?

Moving Forward
Offline
Last seen: 1 hour 6 min ago
Joined: 12/27/2005 - 7:35pm
Matt, since you seem to have

Matt, since you seem to have a lot in common with RINOs like Roger Katz, do you happen to live in that same District?

Melvin Udall
Offline
Last seen: 11 hours 11 min ago
Joined: 05/01/2002 - 12:01am
Noted liberal columnist Edgar

Noted liberal columnist Edgar Beem considers Roger Katz one of the "few honest Republicans...." or words to that effect.

Toolsmith
Offline
Last seen: 3 hours 6 min ago
Joined: 07/14/2016 - 11:22am
Democrats gerrymander as much

Democrats gerrymander as much, or more, whenever they are in control. Some of the districts in MA look like ribbons, slicing the countryside up and attaching each ribbon to an urban center to cancel out the rural vote and ensure that only Democrats can win. Both parties do it.

Now the Democrats aren't happy that they still didn't get their "permanent majority", so they're fiddling ballots to just steal the elections. California's primary system which has eliminated Republicans, Independents, and all 3rd parties from virtually all elections is the worst case so far. I'm wondering if the Ranked Choice in Maine is intended to achieve the same effect.

Calvin
Offline
Last seen: 7 hours 17 min ago
Joined: 05/15/2001 - 12:01am
Vote candidates first,,,,

Vote candidates first,,,,

I hope people vote for the candidates first just to see what a mess RCV is. Then maybe they will get flustered and vote NO !
If a second count is required, it is done in Augusta I am told. Does anyone remember the ballot counting that took place in John Martin's annex ?

Bruce Libby
Offline
Last seen: 7 hours 27 min ago
Joined: 01/17/2006 - 7:08pm
Do not give to much to that

Do not give to much to that Toolsmith. It gives to much to the snowflakes and followers of Cutler ,it is just revenge for
8 years of LePage.

Mike G
Offline
Last seen: 1 day 10 hours ago
Joined: 02/17/2000 - 1:01am
So if they pass ranked voting

So if they pass ranked voting and you have a choice to chose 3 but chose to vote for just one, doesn't that increase the power of just the one vote?

Surely they don't propose that you have to vote for someone that you don't want elected why that would be pure commie?

Toolsmith
Offline
Last seen: 3 hours 6 min ago
Joined: 07/14/2016 - 11:22am
If you vote for just one, or

If you vote for just one, or even two, and those are eliminated... you get no further vote at all.
That means those who keep ranking beyond the first one or two get more input, not less.
One of the arguments against ranked choice is that it does indeed violate one person one vote.

matt8888
Offline
Last seen: 2 months 2 days ago
Joined: 10/14/2007 - 10:09am
On a close race, if another

On a close race, if another candidate simply said, Vote for me 2nd place, its possible they could win?

anonymous_coward
Offline
Last seen: 2 days 8 hours ago
Joined: 10/21/2016 - 12:18pm
@Toolsmith:"If you vote for

@Toolsmith:"If you vote for just one, or even two, and those are eliminated... you get no further vote at all.
That means those who keep ranking beyond the first one or two get more input, not less.
One of the arguments against ranked choice is that it does indeed violate one person one vote."

But it's not mandatory to vote.
If you vote in the first election and your candidate doesn't win, and you choose not to vote in the runoff, that's your choice.
That's the same as only choosing a 1st no others.

Watcher
Offline
Last seen: 8 hours 6 min ago
Joined: 03/23/2008 - 12:32pm
Maybe I misunderstand your

Maybe I misunderstand your statement A-C but there is no run off vote. You vote once only. You can rank your choices but that is the only chance you get.

Watcher
Offline
Last seen: 8 hours 6 min ago
Joined: 03/23/2008 - 12:32pm
In one of the videos against

In one of the videos against RCV or Instant Run-off Voting, it shows that it is possible to elect a candidate without a majority of votes. An example is if you have 100 voters and 10 voters choices are erased because those 10 voters 1st, 2nd and 3rd choices did not make the cut. That leaves 90 votes to count. If one of the remaining candidates get 46 votes...he/she wins because that is 51% of 90 but....it is not 51% of 100...the actual number of votes.

Toolsmith
Offline
Last seen: 3 hours 6 min ago
Joined: 07/14/2016 - 11:22am
Which points out the

Which points out the silliness of this exercise: it does not guarantee a majority winner. You could still get a plurality...

Pages

Log in to post comments