Thanks to road signs telling me to vote “yes” to save ranked-choice voting, I’ll be voting “no” this June 12. How this issue ever got approved for referendum in the first place is a head-scratcher. The constitution clearly states that the candidate who wins a plurality of votes wins the election. Period.

The people who brought this issue forward should have tried to amend the constitution first, which requires two-thirds majority votes in both houses and a majority vote from the electorate. If a candidate in the upcoming election happens to get a plurality of votes, but loses in the ranked-choice process second round, can’t he or she sue the state since the constitution hasn’t been amended? And wouldn’t the ranked-choice procedure amount to an interpretive decision instead of a direct voting result?

Now we end up with this convoluted Question 1 Peoples’ Veto which reads: “Do you want to reject the parts of a new law that would delay the use of ranked-choice voting in the election of candidates for any state or federal office until 2022, and then retain the method only if the constitution is amended by December 1, 2021, to allow ranked-choice voting for candidates in state elections?”

It seems that elected officials are ignoring constitutional process to push deceptive election agendas forward.

Dan Bergeron, Auburn