It seems time to (yet again) explain ranked choice voting game theory in the context of toppling a well-established incumbent, so...
When you have a ranked choice primary, there is no benefit to piling on resources to a well-resourced front runner.
It's actually harmful.
When you have a ranked choice primary, there is no benefit to piling on resources to a well-resourced front runner.
It's actually harmful.
What does help, is running the primary in as egalitarian a manner as possible.
It benefits the front-runner (and all candidates) to graciously say "please lift us all up and choose the best among us."
What? Why?
Not only will you be more likely to put up the best candidate BUT
It benefits the front-runner (and all candidates) to graciously say "please lift us all up and choose the best among us."
What? Why?
Not only will you be more likely to put up the best candidate BUT
You'll earn the trust, supporters, and volunteers of primary competitors.
Instead of being disenfranchised from an unfair race silencing their champion...you instead have someone who lost fair and square, but will jump in to help you with the next round.
You heard their voice.
Instead of being disenfranchised from an unfair race silencing their champion...you instead have someone who lost fair and square, but will jump in to help you with the next round.
You heard their voice.
Once you get to the general in a ranked choice vote, a head-to-head race against a well-funded and established incumbent is a hard journey.
It's *much* easier with at least 1-2 other candidates, who all bring their voice, policy criticisms, and supporters to the party.
It's *much* easier with at least 1-2 other candidates, who all bring their voice, policy criticisms, and supporters to the party.
You spread the flank for defense and you increase odds of any of the candidates success by...you guessed it...pushing for it not to be a 2 pony race.
You earn the trust of other candidate's voters (incl incumbent), by pushing for a broader, more level race.
People feel heard.
You earn the trust of other candidate's voters (incl incumbent), by pushing for a broader, more level race.
People feel heard.
What do you think makes for a better race against Susan Collins?
1. A overly-monied, brutal, 2 horse race that disenfranchises the voters needed to win?
2. A broad field of candidates that can point to different areas of Susan's policies and ask voters to rank Susan last?
1. A overly-monied, brutal, 2 horse race that disenfranchises the voters needed to win?
2. A broad field of candidates that can point to different areas of Susan's policies and ask voters to rank Susan last?
It's #2
I ask my volunteers to educate and support on options; push back on the 2 candidate story.
Listen to everyone willing to throw themselves in the ring.
Their voices matter.
Their voters matter.
We share a common goal, representation that feels like we are represented.
I ask my volunteers to educate and support on options; push back on the 2 candidate story.
Listen to everyone willing to throw themselves in the ring.
Their voices matter.
Their voters matter.
We share a common goal, representation that feels like we are represented.
Adding...
If you aren't in Maine and want to help, push back on every single article, news source, pundit that fails to mention candidates and ranked choice voting.
Every. Single. Time.
If you aren't in Maine and want to help, push back on every single article, news source, pundit that fails to mention candidates and ranked choice voting.
Every. Single. Time.
If you don't already, please follow everyone on this list.
Dem
@BeeKay4ME
@BetsySweetME
@RossforMaine
@SaraGideon
Green
@LisaForMaine
Independent
@TiffanyBond
@Lady_VanHelsing
It's a ranked choice vote so we can celebrate options, not tear them down.
Dem
@BeeKay4ME
@BetsySweetME
@RossforMaine
@SaraGideon
Green
@LisaForMaine
Independent
@TiffanyBond
@Lady_VanHelsing
It's a ranked choice vote so we can celebrate options, not tear them down.
