Sample rank-choice voting ballot.

Maine recently enacted a new voting system – moving from the traditional plurality, where the candidate with the most votes wins, to a rank-choice process, under which a candidate must win a majority before they can win the election.

Under the use of the new system, a House seat in District 2 was flipped to Democratic control – resulting in immense controversy over the legitimacy of rank-choice voting.

The rank-choice voting (RCV) process allows voters to cast their ballot for their favorite candidate and rank the others in terms of preference. If a candidate receives a majority then he or she wins the office. However, if no candidate receives a majority, then the candidate with the fewest votes is eliminated and the voters who ranked that candidate first have their ballots counted for their second choice. This process continues and the candidate with the least votes after every count is eliminated until a majority is reached.

The decision to change to rank-choice voting has long been considered in Maine due to the strong independent, third-party bids. Nine of the past eleven gubernatorial elections in the state have been decided by less than a majority. The implementation of the new voting system seeks to diminish the possibility of similar results in the future.

In Maine, the new system was approved with a slim majority of 52 percent of the votes, which only adds to its controversial nature. Because only a slight majority of voters in Maine support the new voting system, a question of legitimacy to a candidate elected through tabulations arises. The debate over RCV allows for lawmakers to continue to drag their feet and raise questions about whether the newly elected candidate truly represents the people.  

Republican Rep. Bruce Poliquin, from Maine’s second congressional district, sued over the new RCV system arguing that it is unconstitutional. Being that voting rights are a foundational aspect of the country, the way in which votes are counted is important to democracy. Poliquin argues that RCV undermines the Constitution  “which sets a plurality vote as the qualification for election to the U.S. House of Representatives.”

However, those supporting RCV contend that the new voting system has cleared all legal qualifications. Numerous courts, including the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in California, have upheld the constitutionality of RCV. Under the court decisions, it is understood that the Constitution does not explicitly state that officials are elected through a plurality.

Poliquin and those who support his rejection of the RCV system argue it is upsetting the “foundations of our democratic process” and rejects the right of citizens to cast their vote effectively. An important aspect of this case is the declaration that RCV rejects the notion of one person, one vote – thereby violating the Equal Protection Clause.

Along these lines, critics of the new RCV system argue that vote-splitting becomes a confusing business, mainly for constituents. Poliquin argues that RCV is  “proving to be a recipe for disaster.”

Poliquins’ Democrat opponent Jared Golden and his campaign retorted that any attempt to change the rules of the election after a winner has been declared is “an affront to the law and to the people of Maine.” He also stated that Poliquin should have filed the lawsuit prior to the election if he truly believed that the new voting style was unconstitutional.

Dr. David McCune, associate professor of mathematics, stated in an interview that in some sense “people have a greater voice” when referring to the use of rank-choice voting. Because people have a greater opportunity to express their opinion and will often lead to “electing the candidate that is the ‘will of the people.’”

RCV widens the opportunity for third-party and independent candidates to get elected in the current two-party system. Most people would likely continue to put a candidate from the two main parties as their number one choice, but their second choice may be an independent with characteristics resembling those from either party. Therefore, if additional tabulations were necessary for a given race, a greater number of votes could be switched to the second choice of an independent candidate.

At the current moment, the new voting system is being used in state and federal primary elections in Maine. RCV cannot be used in gubernatorial or state legislative races because it undermines the state constitution of Maine, which argues that both of these types of races must be elected by a plurality vote.   

There has been no other controversy about the use of rank-choice voting from the other Maine Congressional races, as in the other two elections, candidates Democratic Rep. Chellie Pingree and Independent Sen. Angus King won with majorities in the first round – thereby meaning that no further tabulations were necessary.

Photo courtesy of FairVote.org.

Turkey has been forcing Saudi Arabia to go on the defensive in relation to the murder of the journalist Jamal Khashoggi. Following two weeks of denials by the Saudi government, they admitted that Khashoggi was killed within the consulate. Officials of Saudi Arabia have called it a “rogue operation” and vowed to find and bring penalties to those involved. However, President Trump stated in an interview with The Washington Post that “there’s been deception and there’s been lies” from the Saudi government.

Jamal Khashoggi was a prominent journalist in Saudi Arabia who came to be exiled by the royal family after writing a monthly column criticizing the Crown Prince’s policies. After his first article was published, he said that many people were being detained by the Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman, in an evident suppression on dissidents. This crackdown was a result of the ambitious social and economic reforms in Saudi Arabia.

The journalist entered the consulate Oct. 2 to receive the necessary documents to marry his Turkish fiancee. His fiancee waited for him outside of the building for hours without him ever re-emerging.

The Turkish authorities were quick to state that Khashoggi had been murdered, gruesomely, and had hard evidence to prove such an accusation. For about two weeks, the Saudi government claimed that he had left the building alive but after the weeks of global outcry and pressure from the west, Saudi Arabia had admitted to Khashoggi being killed inside the consulate.

Turkey began using this case of wrongful death by the Saudi government to repair relations with the United States by releasing the U.S. pastor, Andrew Brunson. The pastor was being held prisoner in Turkey for nearly two years under charges for helping with the attempted coup in 2016 to overthrow President Erdogan. President Trump told reporters “[we] feel much different about Turkey today than we did yesterday” and that he had great hope of having “a very, very good relationship.”

Since the Arab Spring in 2010, Turkey has been emerging as a rival Middle Eastern power when it supported the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt whereas Saudi Arabia harshly did not. Erdogan is an Islamist and many parties in the region that are as well, look to him for leadership and guidance. The Saudi Crown Prince had accused Erdogan as attempting to “reinstate the Islamic Caliphate” of the previous Ottoman Empire.

The Crown Prince is a vital piece of the coalition in rejecting the ideas of the Islamist coalition in the Middle East. By revealing the details of the murder of journalist Khashoggi, Erdogan is sending a wave of anxiety towards the Crown Prince and his hopes of suppressing the Islamists.

Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates have worked closely together to outlaw the Islamic Brotherhood type of political parties and terrorist groups. And last year, Saudi Arabia and the Emirates worked to isolate Qatar due to the country’s support for the Brotherhood Islamists.

There has been evident hostility between Turkey and the Emirates and Saudi Arabia since the Arab Spring. Some have noted that Turkey may be using the Khashoggi affair to get Saudi Arabia to rethink current deals that have helped to crash the Turkish currency.

The Saudi government has spent the last year positioning itself to be the key ally in the Middle East to the U.S. and other Western nations. During this time, Erdogan and Trump were having staunching disagreements and attacks over the jailing of an American pastor which concluded with strong sanctions and a horrible relationship with the U.S.

For Ankara, the death of Khashoggi came at a great time, being that it was the day after Erdogan speech stating his ambition for regional leadership. He used the murder of the Saudi journalist to prove that the U.S.-Saudi relationship was morally unjustified. Because Turkey took it under their power to release key information and hype up the gruesome death, the public and media of the West were outraged, thus affecting the alliance between the West and the Saudi’s.

It is important to note that Saudi Arabia and Turkey are both authoritarian regimes where gruesome murders committed by the government are a regular occurrence. Saudi Arabia still beheads people as punishment for crimes against the state. Turkey is known for suppressing the media and holding many journalists hostage, much like the Saudi government did with Khashoggi.

It is ironic that Erdogan, who strongly opposes the media, could find himself to be the greatest beneficiary of the Western outcry over the death of a journalist.

Photo courtesy of apnews.com.

When raffling off a gun, the organization will usually sell tickets anywhere from $5 to $40 dollars depending on the price of the gun. In a recent raffle put on by Grain Valley Sports League, people from all over the state of Missouri and into Kansas contacted the organizers to buy tickets. Selling tickets at $10, the kids raised a total of about $4,000 during their raffle.

In a separate gun raffle in Northwest Oklahoma in 2017, about $12,000 was raised to support volunteer firefighters in the town. In that area, gun raffles are a popular fundraiser for countless organizations. Legal gun raffles lead by the local NRA committee have raised over $1 million in the past 25 years.

Gun raffles raise a remarkable amount of money for schools and organizations alike. If laws were passed banning gun raffles, it would destroy the fundraising models of numerous organizations. For many law enforcement stations, fire departments, churches, veteran groups and hunter-supported wildlife habitat organizations, gun raffles are the main source of revenue for their programs.

Because gun auctions are popular in small rural communities, raffling off sporting tickets or something normally seen in a city area are not as popular. Hunting is a very popular sport in many rural communities and organizations can do the most good with the amount of money made through a gun raffle.

Some towns use the money made by gun raffles to benefit public lands and can benefit public safety. In a small town in Oklahoma the funds raised by a local raffle were used to hire a company to clear out cedar trees which have exasperated forest fires and infected the local habitat. In this area, gun raffles have been used to better the land and other aspects of the community that otherwise would not have been funded.

More importantly, however, the banning or limiting of gun raffle will not have an impact on gun violence or public safety. Because a background check is still required to obtain a firearm, it still meets all gun laws in place. Also, the raffling of AR-15’s should not bear any weight because only about two percent of all murders are committed with a rifle. 

Banning raffles would not accomplish the anti-gun stance of abolition. Nor would it limit the number of guns sold per year.

When someone wins at a gun raffle they don’t just walk home, gun in hand. They are required to abide by the gun laws in whatever state they won. Meaning that the firearm has to be taken to a licensed dealer to be processed. The winner will also have to undergo a federal background check and abide the set waiting period for processing. There is no difference between purchasing a firearm and winning one at a gun auction.

Lawmakers attempting to restrict the use of gun raffles as a means of fundraising are hindering the rights of law abiding Americans. In truth, those who participate can walk down to their local gun shop and purchase a gun with the same level of scrutiny only for more money out of their pockets.

Organizations should not have to limit what they legally raffle off. If the raffle follows the state laws – which is normally the case being that most gun raffles are by schools or government bodies – then there should be no restriction in the auctioning of firearms or any other legal product.

Trying to limit or restrict auctions that allow for vetted, law abiding Americans to win a firearm and still have to pass a federal background check to take it home, cannot be deemed as a legitimate attempt to stop gun violence and crime. Those who desire to stop gun raffles are, simply, just a couple more gun haters who are trying to make it more difficult for innocent Americans to practice their Second Amendment rights.

Gun raffles are a legal way for organizations to make money to benefit sports, schools, public lands and other community needs. Banning or limiting raffles would only hold negative effects on rural communities where the majority of their funds are a result of gun auctions.

Photo courtesy of fredericknewspost.com.

Justice Kavanaugh and Christine Blasey Ford during hearing about Ford’s allegations of Kavanaugh of sexual assault.

Nobody should be considered guilty until proven innocent in the United States. However, this is exactly what occurred during the Brett Kavanaugh confirmation process.

Kavanaugh was immediately demonized by much of the Democratic Party after Christine Blasey Ford’s allegation that he had sexual assaulted her in high school. He was deemed guilty in the eyes of many before any evidence was made public, and before his right of due process. Kavanaugh was not given an opportunity to state his recollection of events until after he was presumed guilty by nearly every Democratic Senator.

Because of the #MeToo movement, Justice Kavanaugh was denied the universal human right of a presumption of innocence and was rejected his constitutional right to due process until after he was believed to be guilty. #MeToo is setting a dangerous precedent around politics and around the judicial system.

Kavanaugh’s confirmation process was correctly stated to be the politics of “search and destroy.” It was an embarrassment to the prestige of our political institutions and an embarrassment of the American people.

The standard that the #MeToo movement is placing upon the law is one that should deeply worry the American public. This standard is rejecting due process and stating that if you are accused, it is because you are guilty. There is no ability to clear your name even if the allegations are proven to be false.

In the instance of Kavanaugh, an FBI investigation was conducted to determine if there was any evidence that would support the claims made by Ford. After a week, the conclusions of the investigation stated that there was not substantial evidence to prove the guilt of Kavanaugh.

There was no evidence, yet most Democrats will only recognize him as a sexual assaulter. No amount of evidence will cause them to change their mind about Kavanaugh. This is a rejection of the core of American values and a rejection to the notion innocent until proven guilty.

The #MeToo movement is driving us back to the Salem Witch Trials in its understanding of the law. One accusation can ruin the life of someone even if there is no evidence that supports the claims against you. You can be hanged in the eyes of the public because there is no true form of due process.

The law is no longer about proving someone’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, because in the eyes of this movement, an accusation means that the accused is guilty beyond any reasonable doubt. There is no innocence to prevail. Facts are irrelevant in the eyes of their understanding of the law.

The U.S. has due process because sometimes people do lie. As horrible as it may seem, some women do lie about being sexually assaulted. This is why having the right of due process before being guilty in the eyes of the public is so necessary. We cannot allow for people to be guilty just because we believe sexual assault to be a horrific action. Men can be innocent. But if they are not, they should be brought to justice, not by protests, screaming and violence, but through the courts and the legal system.

People having their first instinct to believe the accuser in a sexual assault allegation is a fair belief, but the ultimate decision should be based upon facts. Emotions are not a credible basis to convict. Without substantial evidence, one cannot be found guilty. This is not a precedent to protect men from being convicted of sexual assault, it is a precedent to protect all citizens from being wrongfully convicted.

In the case of Kavanaugh, there was no corroborating evidence discovered meaning that he cannot be found guilty in a court of law. Even in the court of public opinion, fairness should prevent conviction without clear evidence.

If the FBI investigation continues, and true corroborating evidence prevails, then Kavanaugh should be impeached from the bench. But with the lack of evidence, Kavanaugh has not been proven guilty and thus has every right to sit on the bench of the Supreme Court.

Disagreeing with the confirmation of Kavanaugh due to his political beliefs is one thing, but making his confirmation process strictly about an allegation that has yet to provide any substantial evidence is a shameful tactic. It was not fair to the accusers nor was it fair to Kavanaugh.

If the new standard created by the #MeToo movement continues to take hold in our judicial system, we will lose our right to prove our innocence and any accusation against us will mean obvious guilt.

Sexual assault allegations must always be taken seriously and those who make those allegations always deserve to be heard. Yet, those who are accused also deserve to be heard. The #MeToo movement has taken one injustice and replaced it with another.

Sexual assault cases should not be a partisan issue but this is what the #MeToo movement has done. By heavily politicizing every sexual assault allegation, the facts are now irrelevant. The public cannot find someone guilty on baseless allegations. We cannot convict by accusation.

Photo courtesy of wsj.com.