Politics & Other Mistakes: The Pingree conundrum

6 mins read
Al Diamon

In an ironic twist, ranked-choice voting, supported by nearly all Democrats, has the potential to cost those same Democrats the only major office they hold in Maine.

I’m much too polite to say I told you so. Instead, I’ll just chortle quietly to myself.

Chellie Pingree, the Democrat who represents the state’s 1st District in Congress, ought to be guaranteed a sixth term when voters go to the polls in November. Pingree is liberal, and so is her district. Pingree has plenty of campaign cash, and neither of her opponents has much. Pingree is well-known, and the other two (I’ll give you their names in a moment, after I look them up) are not.

This should be a slam dunk.

Except for that annoying ranked-choice thing.

RCV allows voters to rank all the candidates according to their perverse preferences. If no one gets over 50 percent in the first round, the last-place finisher is eliminated, and his votes are redistributed to the voters’ second choices. This continues until somebody gets what is misguidedly called a majority, but actually might be just a plurality based on the ballots still in play. Those who didn’t vote for one of the top two survivors could be dismayed to find out their votes don’t count at all in the final tally.

In other words, ranked-choice is complicated, time-consuming (it took eight days to get results in the June primary), expensive (it will cost the state an extra $3 million to $4 million in November), and doesn’t guarantee that the winner actually gets more than half the votes. In corrupt countries like Venezuela or Turkmenistan, that would be considered standard operating procedure. In Maine, somehow, it’s called reform.

So, how does that affect Pingree’s race? As noted above, she has a pair of relatively unknown opponents. After consulting official documents, I’ve determined they are Republican Mark Holbrook and independent Martin Grohman.

Holbrook of Brunswick ran against Pingree two years ago on a platform that can best be summarized as “I’m an obnoxious toad.” After that resounding defeat, he revised his strategy, and his new campaign slogan is “I’m NOT an obnoxious toad.”

Grohman, a state representative from Biddeford, was an almost invisible figure in the Legislature until last year, when he switched his registration from Democrat to independent. Nobody noticed that, either. Then, he decided to run for Congress, where it’s even easier to be ignored among 434 other stupefying incompetents.

In any previous year, it would have been a simple matter of declaring Pingree the winner by default and moving on to more interesting races. But ranked-choice voting has intruded, and suddenly there’s an unlikely but plausible option whereby Grohman could win this contest.

Holbrook is running on the Trump agenda, which has all the appeal in left-leaning southern Maine of rotting seal carcasses. Grohman, on the other hand, is presenting himself as a pro-business centrist with a proven record of not attracting any attention. Republican Gov. Paul LePage was so taken with that approach that he went off script during a June speech and declared Grohman “is what Maine needs.” His spin doctors were quick to walk that comment back, claiming it was less of an endorsement and more of prescription for chronic constipation.

Nevertheless, some devious members of the GOP legislative delegation, realizing their nominee has no chance of winning this race, have endorsed Grohman in hopes he can finish ahead of Holbrook in the first round of voting and garner a lot of second-place votes from those diehards who insist on sticking with the Republican candidate as their first choice.

Now, here’s the tricky part. For that strategy to have any impact, Pingree has to receive less than 50 percent of the vote in the first round, so that ranked-choice kicks in. That doesn’t seem likely. She got 58 percent two years ago without breaking a sweat. The only public poll this time around had her at about 53 percent. There’s no sensible scenario in which the number of middle-of-the-road weenie votes and right-wing crazy votes combine to give Grohman even the narrowest of majorities.

Still, it’s big fun to watch the consternation among the ranked-choice faithful (in a fundraising email, Pingree’s campaign has already claimed “Republicans think they can game Maine’s new voting system”) at the possibility their self-imposed disruption of traditional balloting could cost one of their most prominent supporters her position of power.

Sound the irony alarm. Maybe that will drown out the sound of my chortling.

No need to rank your comments emailed to aldiamon@herniahill.net.

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

6 Comments

  1. Al, I get the point of the article as ranked choice can have unintended consequences and you needed a potential scenario to explain the point. However, everyone needs to have perspective as this will not impact the 2nd district this November. Also, lets be clear, there will be two residents of the 1st District in Congress from Maine come the new year.

    To any and all posters on this space, a comment about Pingree from a resident of the 2nd district is like a tree falling in the forest with no one there to hear it. Unless you live in the 1st District, it does not matter what you think about the person(s) running for the position as they are not your representative.

    This is the irony I see with polls when people are asked what they think of Congress. We usually see a 10% approval rating but come election time, incumbents win almost 90% of the time. How can almost the entire country not approve of Congress and then that same super majority votes back in the very people they profess to not approve of? Very odd, very odd.

  2. Tired:

    The difference between Congressional approval rating and incumbent reelection may be the result of voter apathy. Depending on the year, 40-60% of eligible U.S. voters actually cast a ballot. Even among registered voters, 13% did not vote last presidential election. It follows that many of the nonvoters might not approve of the results of a political process in which they did not even participate.
    Check the poll sample population. Surveys of eligible voters, registered voters, and the population as a whole may yield entirely different results.

  3. seamus, polls are supposed to speak only to registered voters, and even taking into account all of your analysis it still leaves a big difference.
    My point was more of a rhetorical one, especially when someone posted a dislike for a person who is not their representative. It would seem that an overwhelming amount of people do not like Congress as a whole but they like their individual representative. Apathy aside, this shows a more microscopic version of tribalism that has been going on for years in the country.
    Lately, people have a visceral dislike for something that does not share the same identity as them. For example, most people think things should get done and that gridlock is a bad thing.
    These same people see the gridlock in Congress and they instantly voice their displeasure. They label Congress as “Politicians” and the hate begins. What is unfortunate is that they don’t recognize their own contribution to this by sending the same people “Politicians” back every two years.As an aside, this is not a call to elect more business people. I come from the business world and it has its own dysfunction.

    Add in a two party only system and it hyper charges identity politics/tribalism.
    At the end of the day, I don’t see how we can change this and it would be better if people focused on understanding how their elected officials vote and who they are beholden to in regards to their large donors.
    Both parties have lots of dark money so there is no white knight. What is important is to understand who the elected official is really looking out for. If that aligns with an individual voter’s values, then they should vote for that person. However, I wonder how often anyone is really informed enough to see the picture beyond the veil of their own self applied labels.

    Maybe this is what the big money donors want after all as identity politics is just another form of branding. While usually we describe branding as a way to promote and market a product, I think it is more like the old hot iron branding which showed ownership and control over an entire herd.
    Sorry for the dark thoughts. The cold rain is to blame

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.