I am responding to several points raised in a recent op-ed by Gordon Weil. A full rebuttal is impossible in the constraints of a letter to the editor.

Mr. Weil concludes that Ranked Choice Voting is too expensive by citing the wrong number. He includes the cost of upgrading the state’s software, which will happen regardless of whether RCV is approved. State Treasurer Terry Hayes more accurately puts the incremental cost of implementing RCV at approximately $550,000.

Mr. Weil apparently believes that Maine voters are not bright enough to understand the consequences of ranking candidates. As pointed out by political scientist Sandy Maisel of Colby College, numerous studies “show that voters quickly understand ranked-choice voting and have little difficulty in ranking candidates.” The last two Portland municipal elections support that finding.

Mr. Weil is apparently satisfied with our electoral status quo and, by inference, the hyper-partisanship it engenders. However, he seems to prefer a run-off election to RCV.

As the League of Women Voters pointed out when they studied the issue, run-offs extend the campaign season, drive up the cost of campaigns, and produce a significant reduction in voter turnout. In addition, our brave servicemen and women overseas cannot participate in a run-off.

Mr. Weil criticizes RCV by noting that it “may prove difficult for ideological candidates to gain back-up support.” That is the very point of RCV. If a candidate appeals only to the base and that base is not a majority, that candidate cannot win.

RCV encourages reaching out beyond the base and, by definition, encourages compromise and civility from candidates. The current election cycle has exposed us to the most vicious and substance-free contest in my memory. RCV provides an opportunity to reform our electoral process to encourage Abraham Lincoln’s “better angels of our nature.”

Cushing Pagon Samp
Saco