Dear Editor:

You have to wonder how it is that people who should know the law can write so much that is contrary to legal facts. In this year especially when the Supreme Court decision rejected an attempt at reinterpretation of the 1963 interpretation of the Constitutional rule that voting districts are by population, not restricted to registered or eligible voters. After all when you are in office you are supposed to be representing the entire population, including children.

Rank Choice voting not only saves another separate election costs because the rank choices are already made in the initial voting process, it is more accurate according to a 2016 Scientific American article. In fact it concludes “as the majority dominance theorem shows, it would come closer to an accurate representation of the voters’ wishes than any other system does.” You would think that representatives would do a better job of research if they were going to object to the people’s proposed fair vote bill #5 on the ballot.

How is it that a current legislator is unaware of the method of implementation that preserves the small town counting of every vote, and the use of technology for rank choice final results? Why would anyone want a voting system that did not represent the majority of the voters’ wishes? Some people seem to be working at reducing voter participation and thereby having fewer votes determining election results. Redistricting without regard to population was one attempt rejected by the Supreme Court.

Proposed bill #5, “Rank Choice Voting,” honors the Constitution by providing a more accurate reflection of voter wishes and avoiding expensive run-off elections where fewer voters determine outcomes. An interesting experiment would be to rank choice the GOP primary candidates to see what results. The governor states the current candidate was his third choice. Scientific American used the Gore, Nader, Bush, Buchanan election which, when ranked resulted in 51 percent of voters preferring Gore. That would better fit our majority or simple majority rule. The article was first published in 2004 titled “The Fairest Vote of All.” So let’s honor the fairest vote and the true voters’ wishes proposed by the people of Maine, #5 on the ballot.

Jarryl Larson

Edgecomb