Maine is one of the few states where that's viable - as Nate Silver notes[1], it's probably the most independent-leaning state in the nation, as evidenced by its support for Ross Perot in the 90s. Rhode Island would be another, and I'd peg Colorado as a distant third.

Minnesota is an outlier in my mind - it's more attributable to the fact that the Republican candidate (Norm Coleman) was a terrible candidate (he only won his Senate seat because his opponent died right before the election[2]), and the race was irregular in other ways too. It happened once, but I wouldn't bet on it happening again there anytime soon, unless things change.

[1] http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/10/15/in-maine...

[2] To Coleman's credit, John Ashcroft ran against a dead man and lost, so I guess Coleman had something going for him.

> John Ashcroft ran against a dead man and lost

He lost to the dead man's wife, who the voters knew would take that seat even if the ballots couldn't be reprinted in time.

Those states probably have a much higher educational attainment level, civic engagement/consciousness and intelligence level than the rest of the United States.

They did not have to contend with having to vie for the vote of 300+ million people.

Also, elections for governor do not have to account for the Electoral College which IMO is an anarchic holdover from a time when communication was much harder.