Candidates in Maine’s gubernatorial race are discovering what political strategists across the country already know: winning under ranked choice voting requires an entirely different playbook. Gone are the days when securing 35% of the vote guarantees victory. Now, being everyone’s second choice might matter more than being someone’s first.
Alaska proved this dramatically in 2022 when Democrat Mary Peltola defeated Sarah Palin for a House seat, despite Palin initially leading in first-choice votes. The victory came through strategic coalition-building that appealed to voters across party lines – a lesson that’s reshaping how campaigns operate in purple states adopting this electoral reform.
Ranked choice voting allows voters to rank candidates in order of preference. If no candidate receives a majority of first-choice votes, the candidate with the fewest votes is eliminated, and their supporters’ second choices are redistributed. This process continues until someone achieves a majority. Currently used in Alaska and Maine for federal races, plus dozens of municipalities nationwide, this system is fundamentally altering campaign dynamics where traditional partisan appeals no longer guarantee success.
The End of Negative Campaign Warfare
Traditional campaign strategy revolves around mobilizing your base while suppressing opponent turnout through negative advertising. Ranked choice voting flips this logic entirely. Attack ads that destroy an opponent might backfire if that opponent’s supporters could potentially rank you second.
“You can’t just tear down your opponents anymore,” explains Rob Richie, president of FairVote, a nonprofit advocating for electoral reforms. “You need those voters to potentially come to you in later rounds.”
This shift is evident in Maine’s recent campaigns. In the 2018 gubernatorial race, candidates focused more on policy differentiation than character assassination. Republican Shawn Moody, Democrat Janet Mills, and Independent Terry Hayes all maintained relatively civil discourse, knowing they needed to appeal beyond their core constituencies.
The strategy extends to advertising budgets. Campaigns now allocate resources differently, investing more in positive messaging and coalition-building events rather than opposition research and attack ads. In Alaska’s 2022 special election, successful campaigns emphasized policy positions and personal qualifications while avoiding the scorched-earth tactics typical of competitive races.
This civility dividend appears in down-ballot races too. Military veterans running for school board positions in Maine report more substantive policy discussions during candidate forums, as all participants recognize the need to appeal to diverse voter coalitions.
Coalition Building Becomes Essential
Purple states using ranked choice voting are witnessing unprecedented cross-party collaboration during campaign season. Candidates actively seek endorsements from rivals’ supporters, knowing second-choice preferences could determine victory.
Maine’s 2020 Senate race exemplified this dynamic. Republican Susan Collins, facing a strong challenge from Democrat Sara Gideon, explicitly courted supporters of Independent Lisa Savage. Collins’ campaign highlighted areas of agreement with Savage on environmental issues while maintaining her Republican credentials on fiscal matters.
Campaign events now feature joint appearances and policy forums where candidates interact civilly, recognizing that today’s opponent’s supporters might become tomorrow’s coalition partners. This has led to more nuanced policy positions as candidates avoid taking extreme stances that might alienate potential second-choice voters.
The fundraising implications are significant. Donors increasingly support candidates who can build broad coalitions rather than just energize partisan bases. This rewards moderate candidates and policy pragmatists while potentially disadvantaging ideological purists who struggle to expand beyond their core supporters.
Alaska’s recent legislative races demonstrate this trend. Candidates successful under ranked choice voting built diverse funding networks that crossed traditional partisan lines, appealing to business leaders, union members, and issue-based advocacy groups simultaneously.
Resource Allocation and Voter Outreach Revolution
Campaign budgets reflect ranked choice voting’s strategic demands. Traditional campaigns concentrate resources on likely supporters and swing voters in their geographic strongholds. Ranked choice campaigns must spread resources across broader constituencies, seeking second and third-choice support from unexpected quarters.
Field operations undergo fundamental changes. Instead of focusing solely on voter identification and turnout among likely supporters, campaigns invest heavily in voter education about the ranking process itself. Maine campaigns report spending 15-20% of their budgets on educational materials explaining how ranked choice voting works.
Canvassing scripts evolve from simple persuasion tools to complex educational resources. Campaign volunteers must explain not just why voters should support their candidate first, but why their candidate deserves consideration as a second or third choice. This requires deeper policy knowledge and more sophisticated training programs.
Digital strategies adapt accordingly. Social media messaging becomes more inclusive and less confrontational. Rather than targeting narrow demographic slices with partisan content, campaigns use broader messaging that appeals across traditional boundaries. Facebook and Instagram ads emphasize policy achievements and qualifications rather than partisan talking points.
Phone banking operations expand their reach. Traditional campaigns focus calls on registered party members and identified supporters. Ranked choice campaigns contact broader voter universes, including registered independents and members of opposing parties who might consider ranking their candidate second or third.
Polling becomes more complex and expensive. Campaigns must track not just head-to-head matchups but also second-choice preferences across multiple scenarios. This requires larger sample sizes and more sophisticated modeling, increasing research costs but providing crucial strategic intelligence.
Impact on Candidate Recruitment and Party Strategy
Political parties in ranked choice voting states are rethinking candidate recruitment entirely. The traditional model of selecting candidates who excite the partisan base while appealing to swing voters is giving way to recruiting candidates with broader appeal from the start.
Maine’s Democratic and Republican parties increasingly recruit candidates with crossover appeal – politicians known for bipartisan collaboration, local business leaders with diverse networks, or community organizers who work across traditional boundaries. Pure partisan warriors struggle to build the broad coalitions necessary for ranked choice success.
Primary elections take on different characteristics. Instead of races to the ideological extremes that excite base voters, primaries become competitions to demonstrate broad coalition-building ability. Candidates tout endorsements from across the political spectrum and emphasize their ability to work with diverse stakeholders.
Party leadership roles are evolving too. State party chairs and campaign committee leaders must master coalition-building and voter education rather than just fundraising and voter mobilization. Local mayors experienced in building diverse coalitions are increasingly recruited for higher office, as their skills translate well to ranked choice environments.
The changes extend to campaign staff hiring. Traditional campaign managers specialized in partisan warfare find their skills less relevant. Instead, campaigns seek managers with experience in coalition politics, issue advocacy, and consensus building. Former nonprofit leaders, union organizers, and business association executives are increasingly recruited to run campaigns.
Looking ahead, ranked choice voting’s expansion appears inevitable. Several purple states are considering adoption, while municipalities nationwide implement the system for local races. As more jurisdictions adopt ranked choice voting, the strategic innovations pioneered in Alaska and Maine will likely spread, fundamentally altering American campaign culture.
The implications extend beyond individual races. Political scientists suggest ranked choice voting could reduce polarization by rewarding moderate candidates and encouraging cross-party dialogue. Early evidence from Maine and Alaska supports this theory, though longer-term studies are needed to confirm lasting effects.
For political strategists, the message is clear: the zero-sum game of traditional campaigning is giving way to a more complex, collaborative model. Success increasingly requires building broader coalitions, maintaining civil discourse, and appealing to voters across traditional boundaries. As purple states continue adopting ranked choice voting, these strategic shifts will likely reshape American politics for generations to come.
Frequently Asked Questions
How does ranked choice voting change campaign strategy?
Candidates must appeal to broader coalitions and avoid negative campaigning, since they need second-choice votes from opponents’ supporters to win.
Which states currently use ranked choice voting?
Alaska and Maine use it for federal races, while dozens of municipalities nationwide have adopted it for local elections.
