Every member of Congress can bring one guest to the presidential address, and they often use the privilege to honor a local hero or send a political message.

Let the 5,000-mile border between Canada and the United States stand as a symbol for the future," Reagan said upon signing a 1988 free trade pact with America’s northern neighbor. "Let it forever be not a point of division but a meeting place between our great and true friends.

The Democratic governor of Maine, Janet Mills, has not threatened to stop paying federal taxes if U.S. President Donald Trump stops federal funding for the state, contrary to online posts, a spokesperson for the governor said.

Janet Mills for standing up to the bully in the White House. She was called out at the National Governors Association conference by Donald Trump and she held her ground and stood up to his intimidation and threats.

They include the Social Security Administration building in Littleton, NH, as well as four buildings across Maine.

During a recent meeting of governors at the White House, Maine Gov. Janet Mills and President Donald Trump clashed over Trump’s executive order banning transgender athletes from

For some Ukrainians living in Maine, the country's dire position — and the United States' shifting attitude — create dual anxieties: while the fate of their homeland appears uncertain, so too does the political landscape of their new home.

Washington, D.C. was recently named one of the "most welcoming" U.S. cities in the country. A recent study from Booking.com also named Hawaii, Maine, Utah, and Idaho. WASHINGTON, D.C. - A recent study named Washington,

What do college students and the United States of America have in common?  They both love to party! Two parties. The two-party system. Thanks for reading! Given the heightened political tension and polarization in America, forgive me for trying to lighten the mood. Actually, I’m not the only one who’s trying to minimize this tension, as Americans have continued to bring up the topic of shifting from our current voting system into ranked choice voting. In theory, ranked choice would increase the effect of minority candidates like third-party candidates in elections while also decreasing political toxicity and boosting voter turnout.  Because of these benefits, many places have already instituted ranked choice voting. Versions of it have been implemented in countries like Australia and Ireland, American states like Maine and Alaska and cities like New York City and Cambridge. At the same time, other places have fully banned its implementation, such as Florida and Tennessee. For the most part, places that have implemented ranked choice voting have reported through exit polls that constituents enjoy the alternative system. However, because there aren’t many places that have implemented it, it’s hard to truly corroborate how Americans feel about it.  With such a small sample size, and such different political landscapes, generalizing analyses of these regions onto the entire nation is entirely impractical and impossible. So, why not implement ranked choice voting and see? To be honest, I think the way people vote and the things they say they want are entirely different.  Take Canada as an example. They have a plurality voting system just like the United States, but they have more than two parties in its government, although the current 2024 House of Commons sees its two largest parties comprising 81% of its seats. Australia, which uses ranked choice, also has multiple parties in its government. However, it holds a similar fate as Canada, with 86% of House of Representatives seats held by two parties, and 72% for the Senate.  France uses an entirely different electoral system, but is also considered multi-party and faces a similar issue. The 2024 snap election called by President Emmanuel Macron showed different parties on the same side of the political spectrum being forced to become a coalition in order to defeat other coalitions, essentially cutting down the number of parties. Simply put, voters just see their ballots as a binary, black-or-white, left-or-right option, rather than seeing the infinite amount of ideologies that multiple parties bring. Even more importantly, the math for ranked choice voting just doesn’t work out. Dr. Kenneth Arrow’s Impossibility Theorem — please don’t call me a nerd — tells us that a voting system that doesn’t have flaws cannot exist. We currently vote with the first-past-the-post plurality voting system. Its biggest flaw was a high source of discussion during the 2024 presidential election — the spoiler effect, where a candidate destined to lose, such as Jill Stein or Robert F. Kennedy Jr., could affect the results of the election by pulling votes from actual, possible candidates.  Other flaws in our status quo system include wasted ballots on candidates who obviously have no chance of winning and susceptibility to gerrymandering, among others. Ranked choice voting also has a big flaw — the center squeeze effect. Let’s say there are three candidates: an extreme-leftist, a centrist and an extreme-rightist. Now, let’s say there are three voters. All three of them would be satisfied with the centrist candidate, but two of them prefer one of the extremists.  Even though all the voters would be satisfied with one candidate, a more extreme candidate wins because of ranked choice voting. The punch line of this story? Naturally, it’s to ask how it affects us. When talking about ranked choice voting, the center squeeze effect is a nonstarter.  If the entire goal of changing a system is to introduce the voices of other candidates while quelling political polarization, ranked choice inherently does the opposite of that. Of course, it’s undeniable to say that our current voting system is hugely flawed and ideally should be changed.  The 2026 midterm elections are fast approaching. Maybe while we vote, we could also be considering the question — does the math work?

After a tense Oval Office meeting, President Zelensky rushed into a black SUV. The scheduled press conference between Zelensky and Trump was cancelled after an angry exchange in the Oval Office. The President threatened to cut Maine's federal funding unless it complied with his executive order.