For many decades I have been worried as to how technology could dehumanize the political process. I feared the day when pressing a button on the television would record a person’s vote. A system where a voter is talked at through the TV screen by corporate-sponsored professionally-edited programming, and then the voter pushes a button to express his choice with an immediate result. But at what expense to the democratic process and good government?

We don’t have instant political voting yet. But another efficiency has been approved by Maine voters. Five months ago Maine became the first and only state in the nation to approve ranked-choice voting to elect members of Congress, state legislators, and the governor.

Many Maine voters were frustrated. For two consecutive gubernatorial elections, one popular candidate, a former Democrat, decided to abandon the party nomination process and run as an independent, twice, thus splitting the progressive vote and permitting a minority of voters to elect a sometimes difficult curmudgeon named Paul LePage…did I say twice? It’s apparent that ranked-choice voting (RCV) would have provided a different result. But changing the process of election should be about more than partisan political gain, or the sting of a previous election.

Yet most of my friends and allies, people I admire very much, endorsed RCV. They claimed there never would have been a LePage governorship. They claimed votes for their favorite candidate could be cast with less fear of helping their least favorite choice. They claimed the winning candidate would have a majority and have broad appeal. And, by gaining a majority without a runoff election, they claimed it is more efficient. They organized, solicited a boatload of contributions from in and out of state, and got an historic vote.

I acknowledge those points, so why do I have reservations about RCV? My concerns are these:

It will further diminish public participation in political parties.

It prioritizes efficiency over quality of decision-making, because a run-off election would permit time and the analysis of a clearly defined choice between two.

It complicates the ballot and the counting process, eroding public confidence in an accurate result, unlike current simplicity with a paper ballot backup.

It runs the risk of diluting the franchise by asking all voters to make equally consequential down-the-ballot choices for which they are likely to be less informed and possibly less careful.

It could permit the voters of the least popular candidates, possibly a fringe element, to make the final determination as to who rules our state.

It has been exceptionally well-funded in the face of little or no organized opposition. RCV could allow big donors to use dark money to determine election winners while weakened parties, with transparency requirements, have less influence.

It appears to be unconstitutional. First, case law provides for “one person, one vote” regarding representation, and it may be applied to the process of voting, insisting that application of one vote requires the clear choice of casting one vote at a time, as provided in a runoff election. Second, the Maine Constitution has been clear for more than 130 years: winning an election in Maine requires only “a plurality.” The organizers of question #5 disregarded Articles IV and V and the need to amend the Maine Constitution.

The Maine Senate voted 24-10 to declare a solemn occasion to seek guidance on constitutionality from the Maine Supreme Judicial Court. The law court must agree that it meets the standard of solemn occasion before it weighs in, and the seven justices heard the oral arguments of five attorneys last Thursday. Questions from the bench were sharp, as I witnessed it, but, as of this writing, it would be difficult to forecast how the court will rule. The Senate seeks direction as to its next move.

I have been concerned as to the sources of all the money spent on the RCV campaign. I don’t have the time or resources to investigate this, but the two major spenders seem to be the Campaign for Rank Choice Voting and the Chamberlain Project. Many Mainers gave between $5 and $5,000. So, too, several large contributions, in the tens of thousands, came from wealthy members from the finance industry in New York and San Francisco. I noticed that one contribution to the Chamberlain Project was $300,000. I have no knowledge of the motivation behind this out-of-state money.

But my biggest concern about RCV is that it could cause fewer citizens to join political parties, and the face-to-face meetings, speakers, and educational issue discussions that party activism entails. If we didn’t have political parties, we would have to invent them. Democracy requires getting the most votes, and a party is a means of organizing to solve problems by getting like-minded people to elect candidates who will enact policy to address those problems. And, although party leadership may try to encourage unity to maximize effectiveness, the rules of the party are proposed and approved by the rank-and-file and their elected representatives. That is how Bernie Sanders did so well in Maine, and how his delegates changed the rules regarding so-called super delegates, rules that had been voted in by the rank-and-file at previous state conventions. The more involvement, the more likely the process will remain fair and good for our state.

If RCV causes political candidates to take the opportunistic route to the general election by declaring as an independent and avoid the vetting of a primary, I believe it will not be good for Maine. Political parties are as perfect or imperfect as our involvement allows them to be, but they are essentially democratic institutions with much mandated financial transparency. However, since Citizens United, the wealthiest American power brokers are funneling less to candidates and parties and more to foundations and neutral-sounding non-profits whose movement of money for attack ads can be directed while hiding its original source.

Grass-roots party activism must be used to combat this corrupting development. As a teacher, I witnessed the electricity of the classroom, of learning through provocative discussion. I have seen people come to consensus, or accept, after discussion, fairly-determined decisions, at their town meeting. Tocqueville wrote 180 years ago that the basis of American democracy was the political meeting. I agree, and therefore encourage all citizens to join a political party and share ideas so that others, too, will care about them. We are all independent because we have the secret ballot, but joining a party maximizes an individual citizen’s influence.

As a career teacher of political science, I realize the dilemma of every representative, whether to prioritize the will of the majority of constituents back home, or to follow one’s conscience. I tend to follow the latter, for two reasons. First, the majority is not always fair to the minority. For instance, I remember not so long ago, the state of Maine, including York County, voted against banning discrimination against gays in lodging, education, and employment. I could not vote to allow a long-standing loyal employee to be fired merely because the supervisor found out he was gay. Second, I respect Edmund Burke who declared in the face of criticism, “I owe my constituents the benefit of my judgment.” Not all folks back home are privy to the information that has come to me as a legislator, and determining public opinion, percentage and degree of passion, is not easily calculated if I were inclined to follow it.

Having said all this, I also realize I don’t have a monopoly on wisdom. I may be wrong. And the people of Maine did vote, by 52 percent to 48 percent, for RCV. The 388,000 who voted yes provided a 31,000 vote margin over the no’s. My town voted for RCV. People and organizations I have always fought for also support RCV.

I believe a majority vote is preferable, especially for executive office. But I believe the proper mechanism is a run-off election. RCV would be very efficient as a means to an end, like that TV set instant vote. There are definite advantages, but I fear consequences that some may intend. As I struggle with this issue, respect for the people of Kennebunk is primary. They have been good to me, and have exerted very little pressure on this issue. But their will was clearly expressed last November. If and when I have an opportunity to vote on ranked-choice voting on the floor of the House, although I oppose it, I will defer to the wishes of my constituents as their state representative.

Chris Babbidge is a fourth-term legislator serving on the Judiciary Committee of the 128th Legislature. He can be reached at 985-3332 or at Christopher.Babbidge@legislature.maine.gov.