Frederic Wrong on Ranked-Choice

Ken Frederic, writing on ranked-choice voting (RCV) in the Aug. 30 Times Record, gives one a chance to identify what “begging the question” really means: It’s when someone uses a faulty claim or argument to try to demonstrate the truth of a preceding unproved claim or argument. Frederic does this when he says that a ranked-choice voting referendum deserves to fail for no better reason than that the change it proposes is not the product of a legislature.

For him, the absence of a ranked-choice voting bill in the legislature is proof enough that we don’t need the change, because, in his view, if there was a strong case to be made, “the proposal would have been sponsored before the legislature and … would have been passed.”

One needs to consider the following: The referendum process has been incorporated into our government and its way of operating has been codified by our legislature; so it has gained acceptance, and although the direct democracy it represents — depending on the issue being vote on — may frighten some with a prospect of unwanted change, no one has proved that referendums can’t be a useful tool to bring needed changes, especially when a legislature is out of touch with reality or hog tied in some way. (This isn’t to say that some referendum appeals don’t deserve to be campaigned against so they will be rejected by the voters).

Frederic misrepresents the argument for ranked-choice voting by saying that its proponents believe winning properly requires that one candidate receive “an outright majority of all votes cast.” That may be the gold standard, but RCV only requires that the winning candidate receive a majority of the votes counted in the final tally. One can still win with only a plurality (when enough voters don’t choose a second choice), though that possibility has been greatly reduced.

No one argues that LePage was illegitimately elected — only that the upshot of the present, plurality system is that the election result can be less reflective of the public will than it need be.

Frederic appears to feel that party support or lack of it should remain as strong an incentive/disincentive as it presently is in determining whether a person decides to run for office or not. I think he wants there to be no reduction of the restrictive power of the primaries in this regard. As he says, “… do we really want multi-page ballots with dozens of candidates for each office?” For him, ranked-choice voting, when it encourages an increase in the number of candidates, does not help maintain the two-party system’s grip on our political life; One could argue, though, that RCV makes our system — even just a two-party one — more vital.

Independent and minority party campaigns gain visibility and viability from a ballot that allows voters to select them as an alternate choice; This value offsets the costs of running and encourages people to run. And important neglected issues are often brought into the public discussion by these campaigns.

Frederic makes a couple of references to “that party”, meaning the Democrat party, while complaining about some of its positions. Does he think this affectation of discretion ,or whatever it is, gives him legitimacy as a non-partisan?

Speaking as a partisan (who will vote for the Democrat but gets energized by the referendum questions) I don’t think as he does that “It defies common experience to argue that people who cannot produce an ID … will ever manage to vote for multiple candidates in rank order.”

Frederic is dead right on one point however (right up to, but not including his last sentence): Ranked-choice voting encourages strategic voting — voting which mostly means you can choose to exercise more control in deciding who gets elected.

Russell DuPree,

Freeport

Watson for Brunswick School Board

I want to thank Byron Watson for stepping up to serve us on the Brunswick School Board. We need more public servants like Byron in this town. I have had the privilege of being able to grow up in this town and became friends with Byron at an early age. I am excited about the many ideas Byron has to bring to the School Board. One of the ideas that excites me the most is Byron’s proposal to allow high school students the opportunity to graduate with an associate’s degree. This would create an economic boom to our local economy, by allowing these students and parents to become first-time home owners, rather than being burdened by the high cost of student debt.

I have seen firsthand Byron’s love for Brunswick and how Byron values the thoughts and opinions of the people that live here. Byron was born in Brunswick, raised in Brunswick, and educated in Brunswick and will fight hard for the children of Brunswick. Byron Watson is the type of public servant this town needs and cannot afford to be without. In November be sure to join me and my family and vote Byron Watson for the District 1 School Board.

Stephen Dobbins,

Brunswick

In Support of Will Neilson

I am writing to encourage all voters to support Will Neilson, Democrat, for Maine House District 53 — Phippsburg, Georgetown, Arrowsic, Woolwich, Dresden and part of Richmond.

I’ve known Will for over 40 years, and he is intelligent, generous, good-hearted, compassionate, and dedicated to his community, small and large. He’s a good listener and has respect for all points of view. He always tries to do the right thing and is passionate at persuading others to follow his lead.

With his knowledge, judgement, and background in economics, law, and small business, he is the person I want to represent us.

We could use more people like will at all levels of government today. We are fortunate that he’s willing to serve us in the Maine legislature and I hope you will join me in electing him on Nov. 8.

Walter Briggs,

Arrowsic

More Support for Neilson

The Maine legislature desperately needs leaders with proven experience in life, vision and a commitment to promote values and programs to help bring Maine into the 21st century.

Will Neilson is just such a candidate. A lawyer, a successful business owner and dedicated volunteer in numerous and important community programs, Will Neilson has demonstrated the outstanding leadership skills that would best serve the citizens of a diverse, wide-ranging district that extends from Phippsburg to Georgetown to Dresden.

His dedication to community service has encompassed active roles in dozens of organizations from Bath’s Elder Care Outreach Network to Main Street Bath to Grace Episcopal Church. He has been president of Bath’s Rotary Club, a member of the board of the Freight Shed Alliance and the United Way.

As a resident of Arrowsic, I have known him best as Chairman of the Arrowsic Planning Board where he has overseen complex challenges to environmental and construction regulations with poise, consistency and integrity — all the while serving as a reliable partner and backstop to his wife’s excellent Bath restaurant, Solo Bistro.

A vote for Will Neilson in November will place a remarkable and energetic representative in Augusta — a person who will serve this district with intelligence, care and distinction .

Fred Hill,

Arrowsic

Vote for Tepler

One day about two years ago, there was a knock on the door. It was Denise Tepler of Topsham. She was running for the State House and was asking us if we had any concerns or questions that she may be able to help us with. She sat down with us for a good 30 minutes or so. We are a small Masonry business and we were explaining to Denise how tough it is to be successful in a small business when there are so many road blocks in our path.

Employer taxes, exorbitant comprehensive and liability insurances, etc.

One of our concerns was that when a subcontractor works for a general contractor, it can take 30 to 90 days to get paid for a job completed. In the meantime the subcontractor has payroll, equipment and supplies expenses that are paid out weekly/monthly. The normal practice is for the general contractor/ owner to hold 10 percent of full amount of job in retainage. That can be thousands to tens of thousands of a subcontractor’s earnings, and he has to wait for up to 90 days to receive it.

Denise put a bill together to reduce that retainage to 5 percent. It went through and passed all levels of our Maine government until it sat on Gov. LePage’s desk (He vetoed it). The bill was squashed. But Denise fought for that bill every step of the way. We were very impressed and thankful for her devotion to the cause and will definitely vote for her again this November.

Gordon and Deborah Kinney,

Topsham

Republican Response to Governor

There is little doubt that Governor LePage can no longer govern. Yes, for sure, he can and will continue to live in the Blaine House and have his office across the street in the State House. But with this latest round of bullying and hatred of his fellow citizens, whom he is sworn to serve, he has lost whatever little remained of being an effective leader for our state. It remains for our other elected state officials, the legislature, to take action.

The legislature has four main political blocs involved, one each of Republican and Democrat, House and Senate. Three of the four are clear about taking effective action now, by coming in to a special session. Three of the four are ready to be the leaders they were elected to be. This would put each elected representative on record as for or against taking action. I applaud the Senate Republicans for putting party aside and be willing to do what’s right for the State of Maine.

Only the House Republicans, led by Ken Fredette, and including my district’s Jeffery Pierce, had refused to come back in to special session. The reason is obvious: It’s an election year. Indeed the election is just weeks away, and they would rather sweep the whole sordid affair under the carpet and hope that everyone will soon forget. A weakened governor would damage their chances at the ballot box. It’s a political calculation. Or maybe they think that what the governor has done is acceptable?

Whether their choice, this political calculation, is correct or not should be beside the point. Our representatives, including Mr. Pierce, need to take the lead and be on record for what they plan to do. Or not. I hope that they will be the leaders they were elected to be.

Charles Durfee,

Woolwich

LePage’s Views Nothing New

If only the resignation of our governor would resolve the deep-seated racial tensions in our society! His personality or mental health or personal attitudes toward people of color are not our primary problem.

He expresses the continuing ideology of white supremacy that dates back to the founding of this country and is entrenched in our political and economic systems. The tremendous inequality between people who consider themselves white and people of color, the vicious attacks by citizens and police are symptoms of this profound ideology of white supremacy, that will persist until we as a society take responsibility for hundreds of years of oppression. Please let’s not pretend that shutting down one particular proponent of these ideas will set things right, or that if he simply apologizes and tones down his fearsome rhetoric the situation for people of color in Maine would be acceptable.

Barbara West,

Arrowsic

PUC’s decision on net metering

The Public Utilities Commission is now considering whether to repeal, modify or continue net metering for solar generators. Net metering means the utility provides one kilowatt hour in exchange for every kilowatt hour put into the grid from a solar source. As homeowners who generate solar power for the grid we urge them to continue the present net metering.

Since 2010 our home system has produced more than 30,000 kilowatt hours of electricity here in Bath. That translates into almost 50,000 pounds of carbon that we did not put into the atmosphere. In addition the 10,000 miles we have put on our zero-emission electric car (not a hybrid) meant another 6,000 pounds of carbon dioxide not added to our atmosphere’s problems.

The excess electricity that we produce goes back into the grid for which we receive no compensation, unlike Massachusetts where we would get credits for the electricity we produce. Central Maine Power then can sell our surplus at peak retail rates. In addition, we pay CMP more than $120 a year in order to remain connected to the grid. So it’s not as if solar power means we get electricity for free. In addition, we produce peak power at the time the grid needs it most. During an average summer day our solar panels produce about 30-35 kilowatt hours of electricity of which we consume less than five. The rest goes into the grid just at the time the grid is getting its heaviest demands for air conditioning. Since power plants are designed for those maximum moments of demand, solar power can help cut the cost of electricity to all users by reducing the need for new power plants.

What’s not to like about solar power? It’s good for the community and for the air we breathe. The PUC should continue net metering or adopt the recent proposals of the joint industry-utility-user group on fair compensation for solar power producers.

Robert and

Connie McChesney,

Bath

Topsham Ordinance Proposals Make Sense

In The Highlands neighborhood where I live, many of us consciously work together to create a “more sustainable environment”. Nothing jarring (no windmills), just common sense practices that take only slight extra effort to reduce, reuse and recycle whenever possible.

When the idea of banning Styrofoam containers and reducing the use of single-use “grocery” bags was first broached, we met as a group to deliberate the concept. Some residents were surprised to find that Styrofoam was still allowed in Maine; others were moved by the harsh overall impact of single use plastic & paper bags. It didn’t take us long to resolve to support an initiative addressing the issues.

Collaborating with a group of already active volunteers, we have met with residents of Topsham, Topsham’s Board of Selectmen, town staff and merchants to discuss these two simple proposals that we think will help keep our town clean and green: one bans Styrofoam food ware; the other places a 5-cent fee on single use bags at check-out — at grocery and convenience stores. Finding little opposition to these measures, we easily collected enough signatures (almost 700 from a variety of voters in all the nooks & crannies of Topsham) so the two ordinances could be placed on the November ballot.

Topsham voters will now have an opportunity to decide if we want our town join the six other Maine communities that have already adopted these relatively painless, common sense ordinances which will improve the world around us.

Thanks to all who have or will support this effort. One task remains: Vote on Nov. 8 for the two simple steps for a cleaner, healthier Topsham.

Bill Ewing,

Topsham

Supporting Tepler

Topsham voters are very fortunate this fall to have the chance to reelect an outstanding legislator. Denise Tepler has represented Topsham in the state legislature with distinction the last two years, earning respect on both sides of the aisle for her hard work, intelligence, and dedication.

As a member of the Joint Committee on Taxation, Denise fought hard to reduce income and property taxes, especially for seniors, veterans, and working families. She sponsored legislation to restore full revenue sharing, voted to increase the Homestead Property Tax Exemption, and worked to make veterans’ pensions Maine income tax-free.

She is well-known for excellent constituent services for Topsham residents, responding to phone calls and email promptly and assisting a number of local people with their concerns and issues in Augusta.

Denise has earned widespread recognition for her work in the legislature, including endorsements by an impressive number of organizations and individuals. The American Legion named her a “Legislator of the Year” both years of her service.

As an attorney in Topsham for more than 25 years, I’ve seen firsthand what a strong, tough advocate Denise is for Topsham at the State House. If she is reelected I know she will continue her excellent service to the Town. I hope you will join me in supporting Denise Tepler for reelection.

Wayne Whitney,

Brunswick

Brunswick’s Police Problems

Let me posit a guess to why Brunswick is having difficulty finding pre-placement policemen. First, they are poorly compensated. The Town Council has taken the opportunity to head the department by nearly always going outside to hire a replacement. Third, the job requires three shift 24/7 coverage. Because of the seniority system new hires draw the worst of the duty.

Brunswick has little actual crime, the only reason for establishing a government in the first place. We have not experienced it, but it is on its way. That is an increase in violent crime when people who lose their jobs, government subsidy or run out of charity and must steal to eat. The policeman may then have to confront someone who resists arrest and must be forcibly detained. The degree of possible injury depends on the physical capacities of the participants and whether the perpetrator has a weapon of some sort. If the perpetrator is shot or brings charges against the policeman, the policeman is presumed to have acted improperly and is placed on administrative leave (with pay) until a third party attempts to confirm or refute the accusation. The charge alone is usually sufficient to terminate the policeman’s future. Who would want to risk that outcome when they thought they were only doing their job?

Little boys once aspired to become policemen because they envisioned the crime fighter as that smiling beat cop who would stop and talk to people on the street and get a cup of coffee from the diner on his beat gratis. When we put them in patrol cars that image vanished but not the work.

The answer to the dilemma is easy for the first three, but only one of them would cost money, raising salaries. Providing opportunity for advancement actually saves money in that it eliminates the need for recruiting. Removing seniority in both hiring, promotion and work assignments makes everyone an equal and costs nothing and actually raises morale.

Addressing the fourth reason actually saves money for the town but means not settling or allowing emotion to determine the outcome of complaints of police brutality. The Town Council must stand firm. They must assume the policemen innocent of the charge of brutality, go on as usual and conduct their own investigation to determine whether one of their own overstepped acceptable bounds. I refuse to believe policemen or anyone else would continue to harbor the guilty if it meant demeaning their organization and their own reputation.

Fred Blanchard,

Brunswick