Thread by @TiffanyBond

I've been asked to do a thread on game theory and ranked choice voting.

In most races, whomever gets the most votes wins...but this leaves you with a person <1/2 of voters like - Maine knows this situation well.

Voters get pitted against each other yelling "spoiler!!!!"

Enter ranked choice voting.

RCV eliminates vote splits, and instead of yelling at people to GET OUT of the race, you get to weight all of the folks in the race - voting for the candidate(s) you really want to win first.

https://mobile.twitter.com/TiffanyBond/status/1128437413586657281

We have RCV for primaries and general for federal races.

If there is an incumbent that several groups would prefer not in office, it's beneficial to have 2 strong candidates challenging the incumbent instead of 1.

What? Won't that limit resources? That's not the problem.

The problem is voter turnout.

A head-to-head horserace with two party candidates turns into a mud-slinging epic battle of good and evil where each paints themselved as the good and the other as the evil.

It's a gross race, everyone groans about commercials, people stay home.

Drop a moderate in -the parties play nicer, at least to the moderate, because they need the #2s.

The battle loses some toxicity, more people see that they have "their" candidate, and by there being 2 contrasting perspectives against the incumbent...it's harder to stay in office.

The stronger you make this 3rd candidate, the more it disfavors the incumbent (and by default the other challenger...unless the 3rd candidate wins, but that's still a win if we aren't fans of the incumbent).

This is party - neutral, but if you happen to dislike the incumbent in Maine, Susan Collins, support your favorite Democrat(s), but ALSO support your favorite independent(s).

You *want* 2 strong challengers on the final ballot if you want to maximize your odds of a new Senator.

I mulled making this its own thread v adding on, but I'm going to add.

Question from the peanut gallery - but Tiffany, why you? It's like having 2 Dems in the race.

I'm not a Democrat. I sound a lot like one right now because a) we do have things in common, and b) I like checks

There are a lot of places where I won't sound like a Dem. Some examples:

Budgets - I'm for fiscal efficiency

Checks - I think Dems are *way* behind the ball in enforcement and am very frustrated

Climate change - let's put meat on those bones, we're wasting $/time pussyfooting

Smaller government - I like issues to be legislated at the most approachable level possible, if legislation is needed (though oddly this places me to far left/far right on abortion issues since I don't think government has a role in medical procedure decision-making)

We probably care about most of the same issues, but may have differences in scope, underlying rationale, depth, methodology, and/or priority.

Maine in particular is more tolerant than many other places of accepting views and representatives to the left or right of us if people we trust are independently thinking and making reasonable choices they believe in.

Note; this has been very helpful to Susan

Rs will vote for Rs or Is, but generally not Ds

Ds will vote for Ds or Is, but generally not Rs

Is vote for all 3.

Maine is a lot less blue and more purple than last year's election would make apparent.

We have more people in neither party than either party. We prefer independent, and though diverse, it's our largest voting group.

Shouldn't we have our own candidates?

We actually do.

Last year every big race in Maine had 3 or more candidates - 1 D, 1 R, 1+ I.

We have had massive vote splits prior to RCV, which caused Dems to yell at Independents and try to drive us out of participation in politics - this turns out about how you'd expect it to and finally forced a system change.

(FYI, sometimes the Dem has been the "spoiler" here)

Many folks here are pissed off with both parties seeming to feel entitled to our vote because each party presents the other as obstructionist, racist, sexist, etc.

One party may objectively be more of these things right now, but that doesn't matter much if you don't see it.

There are many folks in Maine that are frustrated with Susan, who would love a different option, but might not be that into Dems. If you are a Dem, don't you want those folks to have a home?

A lot of Maine love moderates, why do you think Susan markets herself as one?

It is *hard* to leave a political party, and really hard to vote across party lines in this environment.

Moderate independents are a reprieve from that, and Maine's voting system gives people that option with a party back-up plan.

I am fortunate that I can connect with a range of perspectives and find what we have in common. I have lots of supporters more liberal than I am...and lots of supporters more conservative than I am.

You don't have to trust each other, just have faith that I am reasonable.

You might be a Dem who only wants a Dem to replace Susan Collins, but no matter how much $ is thrown at this race, that may be unrealistic.

Don't you want a plan B? There is no harm in having a plan B since we have RCV.

Instead of trying to make me a different person or dismissing me - consider what we do have in common, and that what we don't have in common might be what is needed to win here.

If that is preferable to you to Susan, it's worth a follow and a #MaineRaising to hedge your bets.

Tl;dr - if you are a Dem you want me in this race because I will get I and R votes a D won't. If they are already mad at Susan, they might stick around for the D to earn their #2 vote...or I might be a better candidate to beat her, good news is, it's the same strategy for both.

Ps - if you want us to be excited about your candidates, maybe pick a race or two to get excited about ours?

It'd go a long way toward building bridges with independents nationally to see the Dems show a bit of love in a race where the race structure doesn't put us at odds.

Addendum

https://mobile.twitter.com/TiffanyBond/status/1143668060299124736