Burlington Residents Seek Repeal of Instant Runoff Voting

1. This is absurd. To imagine, that the next great democratic reform in Burlington would be… a return to single vote plurality?! How small can one possibly think?! Personally I’m in favor of direct electronic democracy, perhaps with transferable proxies. Why allow any one person to make our decisions for us? But returning to the realm of the supposedly thinkable: Even though I’m a strong supporter of Mayor Kiss, I would happily endorse a proposal to allow immediate recall elections by petition. That would at least make it clear that our government continues to serve only at the pleasure of the people.

2. Hartnett, Wright, and Decelles are the lunatics behind this petition drive. They are cry babies and upset that Kurt didn’t win last March. IRV or no IRV, Burlington will not have a GOP mayor for a very long time.

3. Mr Wright was not the choice of the people when asked to rank candidates as this video shows:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=img9y2AYTQA

4. “I was an early supporter of IRV,” said Democrat John Ewing. “But I’ve been disappointed in the way it has worked. I think it has proven itself to be a disservice to the voters.”Right, it didn’t work out because your candidate didn’t win. Ewing supported Hinda Miller the first time IRV was used and Montroll last time (He was quoted in Seven Days calling Kiss “a loser”. It’s not like he’s John Q. Public, he has an axe to grind) Kurt Wright said after the election he wouldn’t actively work for the overturn of IRV since the voters chose it. Wasn’t he taking a clipboard door to door? Kiss is not flashy but he’s run the city well. With this small-minded group it’s politics over people and with Kiss it has never been and will never be that way. I hope that Burlington will truly turn out to be progressive (small p) and reject the overturn of IRV. It will be a repudiation of the petty politics that continues to play out in city politics, particularly the Burlington City Council and will embrace substance over style.

5. I’ll vote to go back to the old way. It worked fine. Sanders won in 1981 with a 10 vote plurality and a lot of people think he was a pretty good mayor. And I defy anyone to tell me the last time there was a mayoral runoff election in Burlington.In IRV computer cards and ballots have to be transported to a central location for tabulation. I don’t like that. It increases the risk of shenanigans. Voting to go back to the old way is also a vote to have votes counted at the polling places where they were cast. Better.

6. Killing IRV will eventually be seen as the only useful thing that Kiss did during his tenure.

7. “Kiss is not flashy but he’s run the city well.”Are you insane? You only got half that statement right. He has absolutely no clue where he is, what he’s doing (or not doing), and what’s going on around him. Leopold runs the City and he ended up breaking the law in a scandalous secret scheme to fund BT with taxpayer money.

8. Remember Webber and everybody else- this is not a referendum on Kiss, it’s a referendum on IRV. I really like Kiss (although I’m finding it harder and harder to ignore the fact he keeps Leopold employed) but I don’t favor IRV. Kiss is not IRV and IRV is not Kiss. IRV is a voting system. Kiss is the mayor. Different.

9. I was responding to the poster’s specific comment.Moreover, I think it IS a referendum on Kiss, to some extent. We wouldn’t have Kiss if it weren’t for IRV. Mr. Nobody wouldn’t have won in a regular election.

10. “We wouldn’t have Kiss if it weren’t for IRV”Only one percentage point makes that argument plausible, as Kiss received 39% in the first round of IRV in 2006. One more point and he would have won outright in the old system. Who might have won in a 2 way runoff between Kiss and Miller in 2006 is a debatable question, but the fact remains, Kiss won the instant runoff because Kevin Curley’s supporters preferred Bob Kiss, as did Curley himself.

11. By definition we don’t know who would have won under the old system. But it’s a safe bet that if he hadn’t won, we wouldn’t be staring down an additional $17m in property taxes. Not very “progressive” if you ask me.

12. Yes, he has run the city well. when this is over, the slack jaws won’t be any happier but the truth will be shown that BT was and is viable, that there was no choice to use the cash pool and that the taxpayers were saved money. BT will become the success that it always promised it would be. It’s intellectually dishonest to use the world economic crisis to bring down a mayor. He didn’t invent BT and he didn’t cause the crisis. If you want to remove Progressives, get off your ass and find a smart and honest candidate. Don’t blame IRV, which Kiss didn’t invent either. The voters preferred kiss because he’s honest and progressive. The voting system didn’t deliver him. So get a candidate and do the work to get elected instead of running buffoons and then complaining because they didn’t win.

13. IRV shouldn’t be overturned and it won’t be. Burlington is a Progressive city and will remain so.

14. @ “webber”: First of all, jerk, stop using someone else’s name.Second, you Prog-defenders keep missing the point entirely (and I think intentionally). The issue is not whether BT is a good idea or not. Nor is the issue whether Mayor Leopold and his lackie Kiss should have used the cash pool to save BT. The issue is the dishonest way they did it, and their dishonest cover-up later. They could have honestly come to the Council (even in Executive Session) and said, BT won’t survive without a temporary infusion form the cash pool, please authorize it. If BT absolutely, positively couldn’t be saved except by illegal, dishonest acts, then maybe it shoudn’t have been saved.The unauthorized dipping into the cash pool was ILLEGAL. Period.The ends don’t justify the means. Even for Progs.

15. “Burlington is a Progressive city and will remain so.”Going down with the ship, that’s admirable in some small way!

16. “The voters preferred kiss because he’s honest” – fake Webber, December 2009″Taxpayer money is not at risk” – Bob Kiss, November 2009

17. As an experienced blogger, I’ve realized that the time stamp on a comment may suggest more information than the time per se. Note for example that ‘progressivecity’s’ pro IRV comment was left only four minutes after the preceding comment by the second “Webber,” which was also pro IRV. That’s the shortest amount of time separating any of the comments in this string, even those where the first Webber and I were speaking back and forth. It is my strong hunch that both comments were authored by the same person in an amateur attempt to “AstroTurf” (or create a false impression of grass-roots support) for IRV.I encourage people to read up on what we will vote on. There’s more information on IRV than anyone probably wants at Wikipedia:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instant-runoff_votingAlso this is an interesting quote fromthis page:“Unlike Burlington’s first IRV mayoral election in 2006, the IRV winner in 2009 (Bob Kiss) was neither the same as the plurality winner (Kurt Wright) nor Condorcet winner (Andy Montroll).”Interesting. Bummer for Dan Smith though. He wasn’t any kind of winner last year- but he did spend the most money on his campaign. So there’s that.Yeah. I’m not really into IRV for Burlington. I don’t like the votes driven around town, and I don’t necessarily like Terry Boricious counting those votes for us.Plus- I like “the spoiler effect.” I’m a big fan of the spoiler effect. Dick Bove “spoiled” Pauquette’s reelection in 1981, and that seemed to work out. A lot of people would say Ross Perot was a spoiler in the presidential election of 1992, and the plurality winner in that race could be said to have done an ok job in office too.So the spoiler effect, the mechanics of vote tabulation, my annoyance with the spurious argument of cost savings and the fact that a simpler system instills a greater perception of legitimacy- these are some of my reasons why I plan on voting to go back to the old system.

18. Well said, and I share your views on IRV. My fear is that if Markowitz is elected Governor the use of IRV will expand. She’s on record as saying she would like to see it go statewide.-the real Webber

19. This is not a referendum on Kiss or a referendum on Instant Runoffs. It’s a referendum on the principle of majority rule. Haik suggests he likes spoilers – that is, it was healthy for Ralph Nader’s candidacy to split the majority vote in Florida and allow George Bush to become president. I don’t think so. That was undemocratic.Does Burlington really want mayoral candidates winning with 40% plus one who never could get 50% plus one?

20. “Does Burlington really want mayoral candidates winning with 40% plus one who never could get 50% plus one?”Isn’t that the system we had up until 2006? Somehow, the City survived for over 200 years. And prospered. There were no revolutions claiming that the Mayor wasn’t legitimately elected.Moreover, I’ll respond to your question with a question: Does Burlington really want a convoluted system that allows a nobody like Kiss — a guy who was nobody’s first choice and who didn’t even get a plurality until the third round of counting — to get in? A system that causes a good portion of the electorate to question the very legitimacy of the election? Doesn’t Burlington deserve better than that?So, I answer your question with a resounding, “yes.”The IRV system was invented to keep Progs in power even when their candidate was too weak to get elected in a traditional one-person, one-vote election. Period.

21. Webber – Bob Kiss won the most first choices in 2006 and narrowly trailed Kurt Wright in first choices in 2006, so you are factually wrong about him being “nobody’s first choice.” That’s not to defend the guy – but trying to get rid of Instant Runoffs is classic misdirection of energy. The fact is, Kiss would almost certainly have won with the pre-2006 system in both 2006 and 2009 whether you hate him or not.But it’s not “more legitimate” to have a system that can elect someone who is nearly 60% of people’s LAST choice. You should have more confidence in your candidates and believe they can secure 50% plus one – heck, even Wright came pretty close.

22. “The fact is, Kiss would almost certainly have won with the pre-2006 system in both 2006 and 2009 whether you hate him or not.”??No, in fact, we will never know whether Mr. Nobody could have won a fair and square election. MAYBE in 2006, but I seriously doubt it in 2009. And that’s because of the dynamic of REAL runoffs: they’re different elections from the primaries. The plurality winner in the primary might not win in the runoff. Real runoffs are different from the “hypothetical” (i.e, fake) runoffs that the IRV system indulges in. Real runoffs are a separate election. With different dynamics. And that’s good for democracy.IRV merely “manufactures” a majority for the winner. That is not better than accepting the plurality winner under the old system. As I said, that system worked for 200 years and no one revolted.The old system worked. The “new” system is not better, but worse.

23. This is not a referendum on Mayor Kiss! This is a REERENDUM ON IRV! For the last three years on each and every election day folks have shown mounting frustration with IRV. It seemed only prudent to respond and initiate a petition drive to allow ALL city voters to voice their opinions. Haik you are correct Burlington has never had a run-off for the office of Mayor. And please lets be honest about the claim of “cost” as an argument to keep IRV. This last March in the run-off for the W-7 council seat the expense to tax payers was around $1,500. It seems logical that the investment of around $10,000 to elect the person who will lead us for the next three years should be made.

24. We all make mistakes. it is now time for the people that voted for IRV in the first place to correct themselves and now vote to repeal IRV in March. If they do that their mistake will be forgiven.In closing I would hope the supporters of IRV as a cost saver would not be happy with the !7 million now being bounced around like a pingpong ball for Burl. telecom.

25. Lets remember that under the “old” system, many voters who went for Dan Smith or Andy Montroll would have had to consider whether their votes would have caused Kurt Wright to have won. In that scenario many of them would not have (of course some would have) stayed with their “first choice”, but unstead would have voted for Bob over Kurt.This is one of many reasons why comparing who got how many first plus second votes etc. does not work (nor is it supposed to work) when using IRV.IRV is what allowed Andy to get 27% (and I might add that had he been Mayor and a Progressive were running for the seat the same, but reverse would have occured. In the old system, many would have voted for Andy because they would have prefered him over Kurt, with IRV that would have allowed the Progressives supporters to vote for him/her and then Andy as their second choice).The other argument that a run-off saves or does not save money is moot. The reality is that far far fewer voters vote in a run-off. Sadly it takes a lot of effort by campaigns even to get many people out to vote. The candidate that wins a run-off election often (as happened in ward 7 last time) gets fewer votes to win than they did as a second place candidate in the initial election…thats crazy! It then comes down to which candidate gets more people to go out to the polls a second time, it has far less to do with what the overall support actually is.Also…one comment above indicates there were not Mayoral run-offs in the past. True…one only needed 59% to vote against you and you could still win with 41%. Great system! If it were a 50% or run-off scenario then there would have been plenty of run-offs.I hope (and think) that Burlington voters will see this as what it is. A step backwards. Lets continue to support the idea of having a majority winner. Then lets debate whether an instant run-off or a delayed run-off is better.

26. So let’s say that IRV is put on the ballot as a referendum and neither “Yes” nor “No” gets 50% of the vote? What happens then? Perhaps people should get to rank their votes …

27. “The reality is that far far fewer voters vote in a run-off.”Yeah, just the ones who actually care and aren’t just there to vote on other issues and seats. That’s one of the problems with IRV, people put far less thought into a “third place” vote than their “first place” vote (ie., THEIR VOTE FOR MAYOR), but those can actually be the deciding votes.If anyone doubts that IRV benefits the Progs, look no further than the wailing and gnashing of teeth that will come out of what’s left of their party over this vote as it draws near.

28. It then comes down to which candidate gets more people to go out to the polls a second time, it has far less to do with what the overall support actually is.Dave I don’t see any effective difference between the ability to get people to the polls, and “overall support.” Whether it’s on election day itself or on the day of the runoff afterward, the support of a candidate is determined by how many people he can get to come vote for him.And it isn’t crazy that someone might win a runoff with fewer votes than he received in the first round. Sure runoffs have lower turnout. There’s less hype and probably a lot fewer races to be decided in a runoff- but a real runoff where people actually have to haul their asses back to the polls to support their candidate measures the depth of a candidates “overall” support, not simply its bredth like we measure with IRV.Anyone is free to back to the polls for the runoff. I say more power (literally) to those who bother to do so. Real democracy does require a little personal efficacy.And I don’t really care if someone who might like to vote for Smith or Montroll has to worry about whether their vote might throw the election to Wright. Elections are about hard choices. There is no perfect system. As we saw from the last election- Andy was the Condorcet winner which means that theoretically he would have won a 2-way race against any of the other candidates. Is that fair?You do realize that it was the plurality system and the spoiler effect that elected Bernard Sanders mayor with 43% of the vote in 1981 and it was the plurality system and the spoiler effect that elected Peter Clavelle mayor with 43% of the vote in 1995, don’t you? Should those two elections be seen as anything other than perfectly legitimate simply because 57% of voters cast ballots against each in his respective election? I don’t thinks so.Imagine a world in which IRV had handed the 1981 election to Gordon Paquette, Bernie Sanders has never since won an election was regardeded in the same light as Peter Diamondstone, and we all had to hope senator Tarrant would do the right thing on health care right now.Is that what you would have preferred?I say let’s go with the “step backwards” if that’s what you want to call it. There ain’t nuthin’ wrong with admitting a mistake and going back to correct it, and I’m grateful for those who collected the signatures (mine among them) that will give us a chance to do so.

29. A runoff election is a REAL election.An instant runoff is a fake election.I prefer real. I prefer democracy.Step backwards.

30. IRV offers more democracy. Let’s keep it.

31. this is just an effort to oust Kiss and progressive governmnet. IRV should not be turned back. Burlington voters know better and will vote no.

32. First, Thank you Haik for good questions and a real discussion.Now in general-Some of the discussion comes down to what is democracy? I do not feel it is my place to determine which vote is worth more or less. Whether it be someone who is deeply engaged in the process and candidates or someone who barely pays attention and decides at the last minute on little research. Regardless of their interest, knowledge or commitment, we have a system where there is one person one vote. There are those that will argue that IRV violates that. Unfortunately for those people, courts have clearly ruled that it does not. The reason is that in each round (whether instant or a month later) each person only has one vote. For those that advocate for the condorcet method of tabulation, that method clearly violates one person one vote.Also, to the condorcet method, if people voting in this last election understood that their second and third etc. votes would be counted in that manner it might have changed their voting because how the votes are counted can have that impact. For instance…there are many people that might have voted for Bob Kiss first and Andy Montroll second. If that is the case, and they knew their second place vote would somehow undermine their first choice then they might not have put Andy or anyone else second.There are other voting systems as well. They all have pro’s and con’s with respect to their complexity and accuracy. No system is perfect. What I find very interesting with respect to the opposition to IRV is that it is the most similar to a regular majority system. It simply reduces the redundancy and increases participation in the run-off rounds.As for the examples of those that have won in the past with less than 50%, I have not argued that was a good thing. I am certainly pleased in some instances and displeased in others (There are examples of all political persuasions benefiting from “spoilers”). In some cases if there had been a run-off the result would have been different in others it would have remained the same (which is all conjecture because we can not truly know).What I support is more viable candidates (which IRV encourages) and more issues (which usually follows from more viable candidates) being discussed. I also support the idea of the ultimate winner obtaining a majority of the votes (in whatever round). IRV also informs the elected individual, as well as the other candidates and the voters as a whole, which ideologies and methodologies are preferred (with respect to the candidates). This helps in the short term and in the long run as candidates can learn from the results with regards to what mattered to the voters in that election.

33. @ fake “webber” and fake “jimmy”:Cut the shit. It’s not funny. It’s not cute. It’s amateurish and pathetic.This site gives you the opportunity to express your views under a psuedonym if you want to. Feel free to do so as often as you like. But you do not have the right to use other people’s names. Now cut it.Your 9:11 comment is also foolish. Getting rid of IRV will not “oust” Kiss, retard.

34. Hopefully the voters will see through this “non-partisan” sham and vote to keep IRV. You can’t just whine when your candidate doesn’t win.

35. @ fake “webber”:Apparently, you haven’t bothered to read this site’s blog commenting policy, so I’ll tell you what it says:”You agree not to post material that:*impersonates or attempts to assume the identity of any other person or entity . . .*is false, deceptive, misleading, deceitful, misinformative . . .”Cathy will recognize that your e-mail address isn’t mine, dipshit.You’re a credit to the Progs.

36. “Burlington voters know better and will vote no.”If wishes were horses, beggars would ride. I’m sure that’s a phrase you’re familiar with, fake Jimmy. The minute they got the last signature on that petition was the official time of death for IRV in Burlington.

37. And thanks to your pals Kiss and Leopold for helping out so much with the repeal effort. Prolly couldna done it without em.

38. “candidates can learn from the results with regards to what mattered to the voters in that election.”Give me an example of what Kiss learned from getting the third most “first choice” votes, Zuckerman.

39. In an election with more than two parties, the plurality voting system is fundamentally flawed (tactical voting, Duverger’s law, wasted votes, spoilers, disproportionate influence of smaller parties, etc.). Over the years, the people of Burlington have clearly indicated they want more than two parties. This means we need a voting system that works with multiple parties. While not perfect, IRV is much better suited for a city like Burlington with multiple parties than plurality voting. If you vote “yes” to get rid of IRV you’re really voting for Burlington to be a two-party city. Should we get rid of the Democrats, the Progressives, or the Republicans? If you vote “no” to save IRV you’re really voting to keep Burlington a multi-party city. I have no particular party affiliation, but I’ll be voting “no” so that we can keep all three parties here in Burlington while still respecting the will of the voters.

40. That analysis is flawed. Progs and Independents seem to have gotten elected to the Mayor’s office and City Council BEFORE the introduction of IRV, yet ONLY Progs have been elected to the Mayor’s office SINCE the introduction of IRV. Indeed, from 1980 to 2006 (the year IRV was first used), Burlington has only had 2 years when a Prog didn’t control the Mayor’s office! (Bernie called himself an Independent, but he was a Prog.) That’s 14 years, folks, without IRV!Conclusion: IRV is absolutely NOT necessary to have successful, socially-accepted elections with third-party candidates. It’s just a scheme by Progs to continue to hold power when they felt their time had run out.

41. Sean-Under the “old” system most of the elections did not have a credible strong “third” candidate. Once the incumbent was in (whether Bernie or Peter) they were able to stay in office in part because the voting system made it so many people discouraged a strong Dem campaign. In those situations many people were either discouraged from running or voters were discouraged from voting for the D (by their friends/allies/whoever) because of the fear of electing the Republican. So while I am a Progressive and it probably suited us better to have the power of incumbency, the system was not as good for Democracy.I happen to think that regardless of Party or level of power, it is better to have a system that encourages voting for one’s first choice rather than strategic voting.As for “jimmy”, Bob did not get the third most first place votes. He was second. Facts matter. Many would argue that in fact this system shows how vote splitting does occur and that a system such as IRV allows for voter choice without the lesser overall supported candidate winning.It is quite clear that between voters supporting Andy, Dan and Bob that Kurt was not supported with any depth beyond his initial core support of about 35%. Whereas Bob (or Andy for that matter) had broader support. Certainly Kurt ended up just above 40%…so does that mean he should be Mayor? no…because he only got above 40% when there were two candidates left (I.E. the other one…Bob…had well more than he).I do think that voters like Bradley will prevail. Those of us who tend to be more partisan forget that the vast majority of voters could care less about Party and vote for individuals. The idea of more choices (the American dream right) is one that most people like. IRV is easy to understand. There is a small active group of people who are vehemently opposed and they are going to try to repeal it. That too is Democracy. Lets see what happens.As for impersonations…if you are writing under a ficticious name then live the consequences. Put your real name up and then you can complain about others using the same name. (And, I might add, it is not me…I am proud enough of my words and am willing to defend them…so I put my real name)

42. A little fact checking-Sean: “That’s 14 years, folks, without IRV!” Actually it’s 24 years.David:“IRV allows for voter choice without the lesser overall supported candidate winning”As the Condorcet winner, Andy had the greater overall support and he lost. Bob had the lessor overall support and he won.David:“Under the “old” system most of the elections did not have a credible strong “third” candidate.”The fact is most of those elections didn’t even have a credible second party candidate. Who are we kidding? And I would again have to point to 1995 when Clavelle was not the incumbent, and there were three credible candidates in the race. David: “It is quite clear that between voters supporting Andy, Dan and Bob that Kurt was not supported with any depth beyond his initial core support of about 35%. Whereas Bob (or Andy for that matter) had broader support. Certainly Kurt ended up just above 40%…”You are conflating breadth and depth. IRV measures breadth of support. Not so much depth like a real runoff. And in the end Bob and Kurt each had around 50%. Bob just over. Kurt just under. Kurt did not end up “just above 40%,” he ended up just under 50%.****One other thing I’d like to add to this discussion pertains to the one person-one vote concept.While it is true that under IRV, each person has only one effective vote, it is also true that if in the first round I vote for one of the eventual top two round 1 vote getters, I am forced to vote for that same candidate again in each runoff round, whereas someone who votes for one of the round 1 losers gets to “come back” to the theoretical “runoff” election and choose somebody else.Let me put it another way- I voted for Bob as my first choice last year. That means in the final runoff, I voted for Bob again over Kurt. In a real live runoff, I would have been able to change my mind and vote for Kurt.And the second and third place choices of those who voted for losers are looked at, where my second and third place choices never are.****It’s hard to separate legitimacy from the perception of legitimacy. Perceived legitimacy matters in elections. Even if IRV really might be fairer system (despite the flawed and dangerous mechanics of having to transport ballots for counting) it has to be perceived as a fairer system for that to matter, and the fact is a lot of people just don’t understand it. Most people don’t know the definition of the word “plurality.” Most people equate “most votes” with “majority.” And most people feel intuitively that the person with the most votes should win.You know- Screw IRV! It’s a complication and a headache that nobody needs. Everything was fine before. I think the city will vote to go back to the old system.Want to make it interesting Dave? I’ll bet you twenty bucks we vote to go back to the old system.

43. @ Zuckerman: “IRV is easy to understand.”That’s a joke. A sad, sad joke. As Haik (and many others since 2006) has explained, it’s terribly complicated and convoluted. Nobody really understands how the counting works except diehard politicos and Prog zealots. Sure, you can say, “you rank your choices.” But if you think the average voter understands how his or her second and third place votes will affect the overall outcome of the election, you’re just not being honest. You know what’s easy to understand? One person, one vote, and one election at a time. If the first place finisher in the election doesn’t garner a suffucient majority, we have a runoff between the first place finisher and the second place finisher — a real, actual, human election with debates and everything, with the possibility that the SECOND PLACE FINISHER might actually change minds and prevail.A system that served the city well for about 200 years. A system that allowed the poor, victimized “third party” to rule Burlington for well over 20 years. There was no problem. IRV is a solution in search of a problem.Real elections. Democracy. What a concept. Now THAT’s easy to understand.

44. “As for “jimmy”, Bob did not get the third most first place votes. He was second. Facts matter.”So what did he learn from that? Interesting that you didn’t even try to answer the question.”if you are writing under a ficticious name then live the consequences”Gee, thanks for setting the rules for us, “David Zuckerman.” Here’s one for you, run your posts through a spell checker before hitting the Post button.

45. Compromise: We could change the process slightly, to have folks given an actual second ballot to turn in on election day, to be activated only in the case that their own first choice is eliminated. Perhaps this would more closely align with their idea of a runoff election, thereby becoming easier for them to comprehend. Yes it would be dummying the process down, and I don’t mean to seem condescending. It would be a bit of an added expense to administrate, but no where near as expensive as a runoff election at a future date. If it helps to convey the concept, and if it is less expensive than administering a second election date, then it might be a worthy compromise.

46. “There is a small active group of people who are vehemently opposed and they are going to try to repeal it. That too is Democracy. Lets see what happens.”IRV gave us Bob Kiss and his posse. Game over.

47. IRV has led to only one lively debate in its existence.That of IRV.The two mayoral elections with it have been riddled by candidates not wanting to offend a base of voters that is not even their own base of voters. Not the fault of the candidates but of the system.One of the biggest thing it has accomplished is the underhanded side of campaigns.Lets not debate the real issues firmly, but let underhanded politics, like digging up a former business partner of Hinda Miller to throw a little mud shortly before an election. This little trick had nothing to do with candidates capabilities, but was just plain mud throwing, and an easy way to get off topic and try to grab a few votes, while avoiding the real issues.Same can be said for what happened to Andy Montroll.In closing, what did this underhanded campaigning lead to?Underhandedness in City Hall. I need cite no more than the BT debacle created by the administration.Repeal IRV in March, restore the city and its system to credibility, and try to run the city the way it should be.Open, fair and transparent, it is not that way now.

48. Karen, the problem is that a provisional second ballot is still a hypothetical election:”Dear Voter, thank you for casting your ballot. But it’s not over. Please now cast a second ballot. How would you vote if the race were between ______ and ______?”That’s not a real election. Real elections have their own dynamics that hypothetical elections simply do not and cannot. Issues emerge. Candidates do and say things during the runoff period that may impress voters or turn them off. It’s very possible that Mrs. Voter above could come to a different decision in the actual runoff election than she did in the hypothetical instant runoff. That’s called an election. That’s called democracy.We should all want REAL elections. Saving time and money is absolutely not a valid reason for not holding real elections! This is America, not Techmerica.I have a great idea! IRV is so yesterday! Let’s have Instant Predictive Voting (IPV)! The elite/superior people (and we all know who they are) get to decide who we really SHOULD vote for, and we simply make that person our Mayor. Only people who are smart enough and politically correct enough should be allowed to vote anyway, right? If people were really informed and qualified to vote, we know how the result would come out, right? So let’s skip this messy, expensive, and unpredictable election thing altogether.

49. yes Webber, ha hahhah hahaha… . If I understand things correctly, what’s being advocated by the IRV detractors is a return to the old style of voting, not an improvement in runoff voting itself. so let’s do muddy the waters while there is time; float more ideas, not less.

50. @Sean You said, “Progs and Independents seem to have gotten elected to the Mayor’s office and City Council BEFORE the introduction of IRV…” That was *exactly* my point: the people of Burlington clearly want more than two parties (since we saw third party candidates elected many times even under plurality voting). Since Burlington wants more than two parties, we need a voting system that works with more than two parties—IRV being one of those systems. David Zuckerman already talked about some of the problems Burlington had with third parties under plurality voting, so I won’t repeat what he said. I will add that just because a third party candidate was elected doesn’t necessarily mean that the system “worked” since it could have still been subject to the flaws of plurality voting that I mentioned before. Whether or not a third party candidate was elected is not a good test of whether or not the will of the voters was reflected in the final outcome. The point of IRV is *not* to elect third party candidates—the point is to reflect the will of the voters in the final outcome when there *are* more than two candidates.

51. @ Bradley:The only time in recent memory that people have claimed that the election of the Mayor did not reflect the general will of the electorate was the election of Kiss in 2009 under the IRV system.The old system worked. It worked fine. It worked great. There weren’t any problems. Dems, Republicans, and Progs all got elected to the Mayor’s office and Citry Council under the old system.What don’t you get about that?

52. What is “not to get about it” is that the only real contested race was when the seat was open. Otherwise folks figured it was the incumbent or the Republican and that others who could be viable should not run or else it might elect (god forbid) the Republican.This last race we saw four active and viable candidates. Folks felt comfortable putting everything they had behind Dan and he ran a great campaign. Without IRV he certainly would have had strong supporters, but the media and political world would have said he could not go anywhere because voters would have been too nervous to support him because of spoiler blah blah blah.Andy too would never have gotten the number of first place votes under the old system because those who are P/D or D/P would have coalesced (sp?) around Bob as the fear of Kurt would have been discussed far more in the media and political circles. These are the realities of the old system.When was the last time there were 4 viable candidates in a race? Can anyone tell me that?Also…why is it so great to have more time for campaigning and “new ideas”? Isn’t it the job of candidates to make all their pitches for the general election? Who is holding something back for the potential run-off? As for being locked into ones first choice…I am afraid I miss the logic of the presented problem? Why would one’s first choice change (unless there was some grand revelation…again…back to the earlier point that everything should come out pro and con for the general election)? Gee…I really wanted Kurt to win…but now…I guess I really like Bob more? Come on.The idea that it is complicated is being stirred by those that don’t like it. Voting for your first choice does not hurt your first choice. Voting for your second choice second does not hurt that candidate either (of course…if you are stuck on condorcet as Haik is then it makes a difference…but again…to apply one form of tabulation to a different form of election is a bit off base since folks might have voted differently had the convoluted condorcet system been explained as the system that was going to be applied. Which…is why condorcet is not used. 1) it is too complicated and 2) it lends itself to far more manipulation as people can change the outcome with their second and third place votes if cast strategically. Something that is not so for IRV).Again…no system is perfect. I am not trying to make IRV out to be perfect. But it is better than the alternatives. Please remember…repealing IRV does not return us to a majority winner or a run-off, it returns us to a 40% winner (plurality) or run-off threshold. What sense is there to that? I know that folks have indicated that some do not know the difference between plurality and majority. Well, if nothing else…a lot more know now than used to.The same could be said for how the system works in DC. Far more people understand cloture (60 votes) in the Senate than used to. I think that is a good thing (understanding it…not necessarily that it is the system).All of this discussion is good for democracy, for voters and hopefully for further lively debate.Sorry I do not get all of my spelling right…I actually spend little time on this as there is far too much to do in a day, so I type fast and make a few errors. If attacking my spelling is the best you can do, then I am fine with that : )

53. “Again…no system is perfect. I am not trying to make IRV out to be perfect. But it is better than the alternatives.”No! No matter how many times you say it, it is NOT better than what existed before. It isn’t. We know all the arguments, and we disagree. The fact that you’ve convinced yourself that it is better, just doesn’t make it so for the rest of us. To the rest of us, your new house isn’t better than your old one. But since you’ve invested in the new one, you have to believe that it’s better. I’m happy for you that you’ve successfully convinced yourself. Congratulations. But the rest of us don’t have to agree with you that your new one’s better. Stop trying so hard.

54. engaging discussion…. in a perfect world no one believes in UFO’s, creationism, laser beams destroyed the WTC, obama wasn’t born in america… and EVERYONE understands IRV the way all informed citizens in this discussion do. but face it folks, it just ain’t going to be so. so regardless of cost (and it’s not really that much) and to maintain trust in our elections, let’s mandate 2 person runoff elections if no one gets at least 40%. regarding our multiparty “system,” you’ll notice that in city council races it’s basically 2 parties- just different parties depending on wards. multi party governments usually form as a result of the parliamentary system. Unfortunately that’s not what we have at any level in the US. it’s always left/center vs right/center regardless of what the labels are.

55. IRV=Voter DisenfranchisementOn Tuesday, March 3rd 2009, I voted for Mayor but my vote didn’t count and neither did 605 other votes. This is called voter disenfranchisement. So how did this happen? It all started with a voting system called IRV (Instant Runoff Voting) where voters ranked their candidates in order of preference on the ballot.Unfortunately, under this system, if you chose not to rank your candidates or you chose only one candidate (who happened not to make the final runoff) your vote was not counted.The final runoff between Kiss and Wright was decided by 8,374 votes, not the total 8,980 votes cast for Mayor. Kiss won by 4,313 votes to Wright’s 4,061 votes. Now add their two numbers together and you get 8,374, which leaves 606 ballots in an exhausted pile that’s not counted under IRV rules.I would have liked to have voted in an election between Kiss and Wright as the only two candidates. I did not know or would have guessed that the final runoff would be between those two candidates. This is where IRV fails.I was disenfranchised from that election because I did not want to rank candidates or strategize over the possible outcome. I just wanted to vote for one candidate and that’s it. If it was a traditional election there would have been another separate runoff at a later date where I could have heard more from Kiss and Wright and then had the opportunity to cast a more informed vote, and one that would have counted.OWEN MULLIGANFormer Ward 6 Election Clerk

56. Owen-Sorry you felt disenfranchised. Of course…if you had simply voted for either Bob or Kurt as your second, third or fourth choice then your vote would have been counted. That was up to you.As for 606 fewer votes in the final run-off…that means a far far higher rate of participation (percentage wise) than just about any ward council run-off race in recent memory (over 93% of voters had a vote/say in the final tally). So the results actually show more participation…not less. Most would say that is more enfranchisement…not less. It is up to the individual voter to decide…you decided not to engage. Your choice.To Mark…fair point. Lets discuss a run-off vs. instant run-off. But that is not the question on the ballot. It is whether we return to a 40% victory threshold or stay at 50% (through IRV). If you can get Kurt and other Republicans to stay on as part of the coalition looking for a 50% threshold more power to you. I imagine you would lose most of them. I would not say the same about others in the coalition. But the reality is the majority of folks against IRV are sore losers who supported Kurt Wright. I bet most signatures are from wards 4 and 7 where the R’s are the strongest and where they know the only hope of winning in the future is to return to 40%.Up to someone else to actually look through the 1600 signatures and compare addresses…but I am willing to bet that wards 4 and 7 have a disproportionate number of signatures. Hmmmm why would die hard Republicans want to return to 40%?

57. So because I believe in one person, one vote and decided not to vote for other candidates by strategically ranking them you have concluded that I chose not to engage? I don’t know what to say to that other than it’s clear the Progs are going to take the “blame the voter” route on this.It’s my fault my vote was not counted because I chose not to play the IRV game. That says a lot about politics right there. I was under the impression we had a democracy where every vote was counted.Throwing 7.5% of the ballots out of the equation to come up with false majority makes me wonder why I even voted.Oh, wait a second, I didn’t vote. It was never counted because I made a bad choice.Stupid me.

58. Americans are hard-wired for 2-way contests. It provides clarity, a clear mandate to the winners, and at the least, closure for and acceptance by the losers. The 3-way race is guaranteed to deliver none of the above, with or without IRV, or any advanced civics lessons.The current IRV hash is only the latest example how the 3-way race can frustrate the electorate, and we’ve had these regularly for 25+ years. If Kurt had won with IRV, everyone in the New North End would think IRV is the greatest thing since pockets. And the Progressives would have been rounding up those petitions.Deep down, I think the “Prog haters” are well aware that it’s their own lack of self discipline that handed the Progressives their minority-plurality wins since Bernie left. Several election cycles could have gone to a single coalition Democrat/Republican candidate; Clavelle’s comeback in ’95 and Kiss’ last win are 2 examples that come to mind. One big reason Burlington is a “Progressive” town is their skill at splitting the opposition. Could Kiss still win another election, now? Well, if Kurt Wright AND Ed Adrian run against him, he just might–with or without IRV!

59. “I actually spend little time on this”Really? So who’s writing your daily rambles on this subject, because someone’s spending some time on them.”If attacking my spelling is the best you can do, then I am fine with that”Well, I also pointed out that you were unable to back up your claim that candidates learned from IRV results. Specifically, I asked for a any proof that Bob Kiss had learned anything at all from the fact that a Republican received more first place votes than he did. Since you ignored that and focused on an offhanded comment about your poor spelling, I guess we’re not going to hear it.

60. “Could Kiss still win another election, now? Well, if Kurt Wright AND Ed Adrian run against him, he just might”You have to be kidding.

61. IRV did not confuse voters… two elections with 99.9% valid ballots prove that.Haik, technically, the last time we had a runoff was… twice last election! They were just instant. IRV may benefit one of the other major parties, and when it does, it will become sacred overnight. Astonishing that even some intelligent folks are so short-sighted that they can’t see past one election. Wanna beat someone? Get a good candidate… corporate shills like Miller and Smith are easy for Burlington voters to see through.IRV is democratic and to the benefit of everyone, and most people understand this… and voted for it last time, and yes, understood what they were voting for. Apparently IRV “haters” think the voters of Burlington are stupid?Those voters also are sophisticated enough to reject this “ballot item”, and they will. They will protect democracy for the benefit of ALL voters. 🙂

62. “IRV did not confuse voters… two elections with 99.9% valid ballots prove that.”Describe an invalid ballot that would indicate voter confusion.I’ll describe a valid one that still reflects voter confusion – most people I know thought you *had* to rank all the candidates. Hundreds of people probably ranked Kiss above other candidates simply because they had heard of him, and thought they had to. Those are likely the votes that won him the election.

63. Jimmy-The lessons learned are not like those that can be described in multiple choice questions as required under No Child Left Behind. They are more broad in concept. I.E. it is informative (to me, as I can only speak for myself) that the initial votes were fairly evenly split amongst all three top candidates. And that Dan did reasonably well as a non-partisan candidate. That shows the breadth of Burlington voters mindsets. That is helpful to me as a Rep. When voters have to vote for the “most likely to win” as opposed to “who do I want” then that information does not come out in the numbers.As for the rambles…they take a couple minutes at most. As for supporting IRV or not whether Progressives win…not true. I support it either way because it does give more options. period. I support it statewide as well…even though it will be more helpful to Democrats in all likelihood.And Owen, you misread what I write in order to fit your anger. I do not have a “blame the voter” agenda. Each voter makes a choice…it is up to him or her to decide what to do with it. Showing up is the first choice. The second one is deciding to vote for 1, 2 or more candidates (which is the equivalent of choosing to show up to the run-offs).If we decide to go to a 50% and “regular” runoff system would it be wrong to only include the top two? I mean Andy did pretty well in IRV. should we not have as many run-offs as there are candidates (minus 1)? That way voters will get to make a decision each time with all the new information that could be provided and with all the options on the table? There could be a closer race, say 33-32-31 percent. Should the third person be eliminated right away? Clearly that’s not fair? But then again…IRV allows for each candidate to stay in as many rounds as they have support to warrant it.

64. Ummm the fact that the ballots were, with the exception of ONE ballot, filled out such that they could be counted by machine or election official, and that the intention of the voter was clear, well.. that’s the meaning of valid. If people were really confused, one could expect a least a few more ballots marked in an uncountable way.As for your “most people I know” comment, I don’t even know where to begin… hmm funny, most people *I* know understand IRV and voted for Kiss, pretty sure THOSE votes “won him the election”. Did you really mean a couple of people thought that and maybe you are exaggerating? Or do you have a really small group of acquaintances? I seem to remember simple, clear instructions on the ballot… for those who cared to find out, which seems to be most people who voted.

65. This debate should not be about current politicians or the current political situation. Do you believe that instant run-off is effective, does it change the face of politics, does it change the candidates’ behaviors, and most importantly, does it change the outcome of our elections in an unintended manner? It is really too important an issue to get mired in whether one prefers Kiss or Wright.I never liked the idea of IRV, and I don’t like its reality. Just like I don’t like the electoral college. I prefer candidates be elected by the popular vote.

66. “The lessons learned are not like those that can be described in multiple choice questions as required under No Child Left Behind.”I didn’t ask for that. I asked what Bob Kiss had learned. I don’t think he learned a thing, because he’s certainly not behaving any differently, but I’ll give you a fourth chance to correct that perception.

67. “most people *I* know… voted for Kiss”What a surprise.”pretty sure THOSE votes “won him the election”.Given that he won in the third round, they absolutely didn’t.Certainly you’ll concede that it is possible to be confused by IRV and still complete a ballot correctly. If this is true, then the percentage of “valid ballots” in no way indicates that IRV is not confusing to people.

68. With Mr. Zuckermans comments of wards 4 and 7 having a disproportionate number of signatures. We may very well have more signatures than other wards, because we care about democracy. By the way will Hinesburg be the next town to go with IRV?

69. “But the reality is the majority of folks against IRV are sore losers who supported Kurt Wright.”David, that was a stupid thing to say. I don’t think you like anyone questioning IRV.

70. “But the reality is the majority of folks against IRV are sore losers who supported Kurt Wright.”I liked that this was followed by an admission that this was just a guess, and that it would be up to “someone else” to prove his statement. Party line and nothing but party line, I’d love to see one of these people step up and have their own opinion for once.

71. Dale-I think many people in many wards “care about democracy”. That was not the point. The point (that was not challenged) was that more signatures probably came from those wards because more people there are upset that the result is not what they wanted. Of course, the result had nothing to do with the voting system. Since neither Kurt nor Bob got 40% in the first round there would have been a run-off under the old system (except that many who voted for Andy or Dan would probably have voted for either Bob or Kurt (not necessarily in that order since they would have been perceived as the front runners.) In that run-off, if the same people came out to vote…Bob would have won…it just would have taken 4 more weeks and more money (for campaigns and for logistics of running an election etc.) But then again…this is just too logical for “jimmy” and “webber” (thank you Dale for at least having the courage to put your full name behind your words).And Dale- As for Hinesburg, I will give you the decency to respond. I have no idea what the people of Hinesburg want at this point. I do not plan to move there and just jump in with my answers etc. Since I do not even live there it would be a bit presumptuous (sp?) to speak for them. I agree with Deb that the discussion should not be about Kurt or Bob or the recent candidates. But it does come to that because it is the nature of the beast. While I have used the examples of the recent election, I have generally tried to point out how the system worked (logistically) to include more voters in the run-off and to produce a quicker result so that the elected folks can get down to planning more quickly. It also saves money and allows for more candidates to be viable. It gives those that are elected and those that are not a greater understanding of the preferences of the voters since folks can vote their first choice without being encumbered by the “spoiler” conundrum. It is not hard to understand and there is far less downside to voting ones choices in the order that one actually believes in (compared with simple plurality.)The system did not elect Bob Kiss, the voters did. Whether one agrees with the will of the majority is a different question than whether the system worked or not. I am sure there will be a time when IRV elects someone I do not prefer. So be it. It will allow for all of the points above.Go ahead and attack the points again. I am done with this thread and I imagine most readers are probably done with it as well. We will all present our positions in the coming weeks and there will be a vote in March. We are all truly guessing (maybe educated, but still guessing) at the outcome until it actually happens. Obviously the majority thought it was a good idea 7 and 8 years ago. We will see whether the majority still does.Thanks for the discussion.

72. “I am done with this thread and I imagine most readers are probably done with it as well.”Thank goodness. Now that you’ve treated us to 7 or 8 LENGTHY lectures that basically tell us that you are superior to us.

73. “In that run-off, if the same people came out to vote…Bob would have won…it just would have taken 4 more weeks and more money”David, how on earth can you come to the conclusion that under a traditional runoff Bob would have won?1st of all, the Burlington Telecom issue would have had more time to surface and God knows what else may have happened. A lot can happen in 4 weeks. People change their minds.Let’s at least be realistic here.If we had a traditional runoff it could have gone either way.

74. “The reality is that far far fewer voters vote in a run-off.” – Zuckerman, 12/31/09″In that run-off, if the same people came out to vote…Bob would have won….this is just too logical for ‘jimmy'” – “Zuckerman,” 1/4/10So Bad Bob would have won in a runoff if everyone came back out, but… not everyone would have come out, so… he would have won anyway? You’re right, that’s way too “logical” for me, “David.” I guess you could call that Progressive logic – or that of a party-line zealot who doesn’t think before he hits Post.BTW, either post your birth certificate to prove you’re not pulling a Don Draper or knock it off with the “full legal name or you’re automatically wrong” nonsense. Most of the world got over that years ago.

75. OF COURSE BOB WOULD HAVE WON. Come on! Everybody knows that, silly. He’s the Prog so he would have won. Duh. Frankly, I don’t even know why we bother with elections anyway. They’re just a waste of time and money. Especially runoffs! Sheesh! Progs are ENTITLED to hold the mayorship, ergo, Bob would have won. Of course nothing could POSSIBLY have changed the voters minds between the primary and runoff elections!The Great Prog has spoken!

76. Floating an opinion and calling it “logic” that other people are too stupid to understand isn’t even the funniest part. It’s that he completely disagreed with himself to support the opinion. Hi-larious!

77. It’s amazing how a sensible third way is utterly ignored in this debate despite efforts to educate people in Burlington. There is another option that is better than IRV *or* the 40% plurality (or delayed runoff if no one gets 40%). It’s called the Condorcet method (named after a French mathematician and political philosopher from 200 years ago), it uses the same ranked-order ballot that IRV uses and, if there is a Condorcet winner, that person beat *every* other candidate in a runoff (which is what the IRV final round is) with just the Condorcet winner and that other candidate.The reason the 2009 mayoral election screwed up was that Andy Montroll was that Condorcet winner, Andy would have beaten *any* other candidate (including Bob Kiss) in the final round if Andy was in the final round. That is a fact of public record. The problem is, with IRV’s kabuki dance of candidate elimination and transferred votes, Andy having fewer *first* choice votes than either Bob or Kurt Wright, did not make it into the final round. But if he *had* gotten into the final round, he would have beaten either Kiss or Wright (or Dan Smith).The problem for Democrats is that even though they had the most popular candidate (Andy had voter preference than either Bob or Kurt or Dan), their candidate did not win. That causes the same kind of thwarted voter resentment that the 2000 Prez election caused by electing the candidate with minority support.The problem with the Republicans is that by remaining loyal to their first choice (Wright), they actually helped elect the candidate that they *least* supported, the Prog candidate. This is because if they had recognized and accepted that their favorite candidate would not win and ranked their compromise candidate (Montroll) above their favorite (Wright), their less disliked candidate would get into the final round and beat their most disliked candidate. That causes voter regret and if IRV survives this referendum, Republicans have to think twice about supporting their favorite and may choose to vote strategically for the Dem just to keep the Prog candidate from winning in IRV.Generally requiring voters to vote strategically is a bad thing, we want voters to vote sincerely for the candidate they like the best without worrying that their sincere vote will cause more harm to their political goals than an insincere compromise vote. Avoiding strategic voting was one reason that IRV was adopted in the first place, and it is clear it failed that purpose in Burlington in 2009, at least from the *legitimate* Republican POV.It is not a legitimate argument for Republicans to reject IRV because it didn’t elect their guy, Kurt Wright. Wright should not have been elected against the wishes of the majority of Burlington voters. But Bob Kiss should not have been elected when nearly 600 more voters marked their ballots that they preferred Andy Montroll over Kiss. And voting for Kurt Wright as your first choice should not have helped elect Bob Kiss and that is precisely what happened last March.But IRV is better than the stupid plurality winner election (known as “First Past the Pole”). The ranked-order ballot in necessary to know how voters would vote if they couldn’t get their first pick. But the way that IRV tabulates the vote, resolves that information, and chooses the winner is messed up and Condorcet would fix that.It’s really remarkable that simple solutions (without the historical tradition that the better known methods have) that solve the legitimate concerns of both the majority and minority are passed over and we have to choose between two bad methods, even if one method is badder than the other.

78. The other thing I forgot to mention is that, in this go for broke referendum, one side or the other is going to lose. The side that loses, whether they be the pro-IRV or anti-IRV people, are gonna wish we had Condorcet.And the side that wins could have their *legitimate* concerns accommodated with Condorcet. The pro-IRV people could accommodate their concern to not elect the minority candidate because the majority splits their vote between two others. The anti-IRV people could accommodate their concern to not elect their least favorite candidate when the support their most favorite candidate.Isn’t this false dichotomy (IRV vs. plurality) sad? If people were smart and knew how to listen and not just foolishly cheer their ill-informed position, we would all be better off. And it would be neither IRV or the old 40%+ plurality (or delayed runoff if no one gets 40%). It’s really stupid, but with turkeys like W or Sarah Palin or Dan Quayle running for high office (and sometimes attaining it), polarized politics can be very stupid.

79. Support the Repeal and stay updated:http://repealirv.blogspot.com/

80. If I remember correctly, people have been talking about Condorcet for well over a year in local blogs. Certainly enough time to have circulated their own petition.

81. So why isn’t it on the ballot this March. Why are we choosing between Dumb and Dumber?

82. “The problem with the Republicans is that by remaining loyal to their first choice (Wright), they actually helped elect the candidate that they *least* supported, the Prog candidate. This is because if they had recognized and accepted that their favorite candidate would not win and ranked their compromise candidate (Montroll) above their favorite (Wright), their less disliked candidate would get into the final round and beat their most disliked candidate. That causes voter regret and if IRV survives this referendum, Republicans have to think twice about supporting their favorite and may choose to vote strategically for the Dem just to keep the Prog candidate from winning in IRV.”

    Is that true? Who was the 2nd choice of the Wright voters? Historically speaking, Burlington Republicans have usually gone with the Progs over the Dems. Strange but true. Just look at the number of Kevin Curley’s votes that went to Bob Kiss in 2006.That said. Condorcet does seem interesting. Has it been used anywhere? In such a system I’d worry that someone might be elected who lacks a base of support… What’s to stop a candidate who is likable but doesn’t take strong positions from winning just be being the least offensive?

83. Well, normally we think that the least offensive candidate (from the POV of the majority of voters) is better than a candidate that is more offensive.The breakdown you ask for is available at rangevoting.org (or you can write your own computer program and get it from the Burlington City Clerk data). It is:1332 M>K>W767 M>W>K455 M2043 K>M>W371 K>W>M568 K1513 W>M>K495 W>K>M1289 WOf the 2008 voters that expressed an interest between the three and picked Wright as their first choice, by a better than 3 to 1 ratio (1513 vs. 495), they preferred Montroll over Kiss. So by voting for Wright as their first choice, they ended up solidifying Kiss’s victory in IRV. And this would not have happened if the ballots were tabulated using Condorcet rules rather than IRV rules.But nothing could have elected Wright except the illegit strategy of a delayed runoff where more Conservatives bother to come back to the polls than the Liberals. That’s the only way they could hope to get Wright elected in a town such as Burlington Vermont. But, at least, the Republicans should have been able to vote for their guy without helping elect the guy they liked the least.

84. Why are the anti-IRV folk calling their group ‘one person, one vote’? that seems awfully disingenuous when IRV undeniably provides ONE single transferable vote.If the anti-IRV group had a solid argument for going back to 40% +1 it seems they wouldn’t need to attempt to mislead people about how the system works.This tactic seems really disrespectful to the voters when you consider that IRV was approved just a few years ago by almost a 2/3 majority. If the anti-IRV folks continue telling the voters they were ignorant and didn’t understand what they were approving they’ll likely lose. If they make it about Bob Kiss they might win. (And I’ll lose the 6-pack I bet on this to Haik Bedrosian before the BT mess.)Sad either way.

85. About electing the “least offensive” candidate with a purported small base, I really doubt that is what the case was with Andy Montroll. No one had a majority base of first choice. But Montroll killed either Kiss or Wright (or Smith) with the sum of 1st-choice and 2nd-choice votes. But it was only the 1st-choice (and the transferred or promoted votes from the eliminated Smith and Simpson) that counted in the elimination which is why, under IRV rules, that Montroll didn’t get to the final round (where he would have beaten Kiss or Wright or anyone else).It is true that the Condorcet method favors the *centrist* candidate and that is because for voters on either the left or right fringe, their 2nd-choice candidate is not likely to be the guy at the opposite side fringe. Both the Republicans and the Progs will likely choose the Dem as their 2nd-choice. I don’t see electing a centrist as a bad thing, but that (centrism) is no reason to elect a candidate. The reason the Condorcet winner should be elected is because that is the candidate that the majority of voters prefer to *any* other candidate when asked to choose between the two. That is the only reason (majority rule) and that is good enough.

86. One last thing, if anyone is interested, I have a 6-page paper entitled “The Failure of Instant Run-off Voting to accomplish the very purposes for which it was adopted: An object lesson in Burlington Vermont”. I wrote it last March and disseminated it among a few. But it was ignored in favor or either Dumb (IRV) or Dumber (Plurality).If you want a pdf copy, email me at rbj@audioimagination.com and I’ll send you a copy.

87. “So why isn’t it on the ballot this March.”Because you didn’t get it on there?

88. Give ’em Hell, Loyal.Repeal IRV

89. But Owen, Loyal doesn’t make any sense.Turnout: 2002 Council and Mayoral 7751 2004 Council and Mayoral 8647 2006 Council and Mayoral (IRV) 9865 2009 Council and Mayoral (IRV) 8980turnout is at leas as good (even a little better) with IRV. but the question is what would the turnout be with a delayed runoff (which is what Loyal apparently want to return to)? we don’t have an example for the Mayoral, but how about the 2009 Ward 7 race: Election Day 1573 Runoff Day 787half as much. Vince Dober cannot claim that his election securely reflects the will of Ward 7 voters when he was not the plurality winner on Election Day and squeeked by a thin victory on Runoff Day when only half the previous voters got to the polls. but, it was the law (the rules agreed to in advance) so Vince’s election to Council is legit.People who choose not to vote for secondary or tertiary choices on the ranked ballot are people who choose not to vote in the runoff. But their choice was no inconvenience to them. They *could* have chosen to vote for a back-up candidate (as 2nd choice) on Election Day with no extra effort. But returning to the old system would require people to go through the extra bother and expense of returning to the polls 3 weeks later and we *all* know (if you deny this, I would say you’re untruthful) that far fewer people will show up to the polls. Elections with far less voter participation cannot be considered to be as democratic as elections with greater voter participation. Unless you’re someone opposed to Motor-Voter, we do not want to make voters jump through extra and unnecessary hoops to vote and that is what a delayed runoff does.Even though it did okay in 2006, IRV *did* screw up in 2009. It elected the wrong candidate. It suffered a spoiler problem (but Plurality is even worse) and it will encourage strategic voting by Republicans that liked Kurt and disliked Bob the most. These 1500+ Wright voters have now figured out that their vote for Kurt as first choice kept Andy out of the final IRV round and actually *aided* electing the candidate they least preferred. If IRV survives, these folk have to be thinking about how well their interests are served by being loyal to their favorite candidate. If they had forsaken their favorite candidate (or just stayed home), their lessor disliked candidate (Montroll) would have gotten into the final IRV round and the certainly beaten their most disliked candidate.So IRV encourages strategic voting and that is a bad thing. But Plurality is even worse. Especially for a Dem/Prog/Liberal in Burlington (the majority voter in Burlington). It encourages strategic voting even more. Progs and Dems are gonna have to worry about voting for their first choice and may decide to forsake their first choice just to keep the Republican from winning with 40%.

90. Me: “So why isn’t it on the ballot this March.”Jimmy: “Because you didn’t get it on there?”Me? I stirred up as much interest as I could. Wrote papers explaining what’s going on. Even made a lame attempt at a petition with Condorcet. But convenient ignorance seems to prevail over *ostensibly* less convenient knowledge (there is nothing more inconvenient about the Condorcet rules, same ranked-order ballot as IRV, but the counting of the vote does a better job than IRV and that is not inconvenient to anyone).No, that is what my complaint is about. Stupid pro-IRV people who claim that it worked just fine in 2009, just as it’s designed to. And cynical anti-IRV people who feel entitled to rule even when the majority of the electorate is against them.They’re both wrong. But IRV is better than plurality. If Kurt Wright had squeezed out a 40% “victory” with 60% voting against him or squeezed out a “victory” with less than half the electorate returning to the polls on Runoff Day, his election would be far less legitimate than Bob Kiss. We know that Bob Kiss was preferred to Kurt Wright because 252 more voters preferred Kiss over Wright on Election Day. But the problem with IRV is that it didn’t ask the same question regarding Kiss and Montroll. If it had, we would find that 587 more voters preferred Montroll over Kiss. That’s why and how IRV screwed up. It did not screw up by keeping Kurt Wright out of the mayor’s chair. The Repubs don’t want to admit it, but Kurt Wright came in 3rd last March. He was the 3rd most preferred candidate by Burlington voters. Bob Kiss was the 2nd most preferred candidate and Andy Montroll was the most preferred candidate. That is what the ballots said. But IRV had funky rules that prevented Montroll from going up against Kiss.

91. “Me? I stirred up as much interest as I could.”Yeah, that’s not how you get something on the ballot. You have to gather signatures.

92. You have to get *other* people to sign the signatures. And it takes more than one crying in the wilderness to do the canvassing.

93. “You have to get *other* people to sign the signatures.”…and you have to get other people to vote for it. That’s kind of the idea, if you can’t get people to sign a petition then the initiative probably has little chance of passing.

94. Jimmy, no dispute. I tried to get Burlington voters interested in Condorcet because it addresses the problems in Plurality that IRV intended to and it doesn’t have the problems that IRV has. Condorcet is actually the “purest” method to translate the principles a simple democratic vote between two candidates (and we all agree how that should be decided) to the problem of when there are more than two serious candidates. IRV is this contrived method. Usually IRV will pick the same winner as Condorcet (and it did here in 2006), but it’s a completely different tabulation algorithm so it cannot be expected to always pick the same winner. In 2009 it didn’t and lots of Burlington voters have good reason to believe it failed.But the solution is to not return to the crappy old system. We hear “if it’s not broken, don’t fix it”, but if we return to the old system and a minority candidate is elected because not enough voters came to the Runoff election or because the minority candidate got 40%, then we will see the system as broken.But people are kinda dumb and like simplicity “You be either fer IRV or you be agin’ it!” Well, I’m not in either camp. I’m for the ranked-order ballot but not for IRV tabulation of it. I’ll vote against this repeal referendum, but I’m not really for IRV.It looks like SJvoter got the right idea with his YouTube video, but sooooo few people here really get it. Small wonder, even though I am on the same side as FairVote.org as far as their goals are, I am still opposed to their IRV “happy talk”. They just don’t get it. IRV *failed* in 2009. But you don’t get it either. Plurality (with or without delayed runoff) is worse. It is broken and we just have seen it break yet like we saw IRV break in 2009.

95. This debate is totally ridiculous. Debating IRV vs. “Condorcet” is laughable pointy-headed professor nonsense. The world doesn’t give a shit about pipe-smoking, professorial, armchair debates about how one should rank candidates and then tabulate the votes. It is as far removed from reality as the moon. Get real.Down with IRV.

96. So Webber (or faux-Webber, I can’t tell who is who), you like electing the minority supported candidate? Minority rule. Sounds good for democracy.There are the silly pro-IRV folks who say it’s the best thing since sliced bread and more happy talk that it “worked perfectly” or “exactly as it was meant to”.And then there are the cynical anti-IRV folks who feel entitled to rule even when they are the minority. Sounds very typically Bushie-Republican. Why bother to have elections? Let’s just enthrone who the Bushie-Republicans like since their convinced they’re entitled to power even against the wishes of the majority of the electorate.So the choice is “pointy-headed professor nonsense” (would that include UVM Prof Anthony Gierzynski?) or the “Duh” from mindless pro-IRV happy talkers or the “Duh” from mouth-frothing anti-IRV reactionaries that would like to live with the long-known pathologies of Plurality rule in a multi-party environment. Why don’t we just give the election to the minority? “Minority Rule!! Rah! Rah! Rah!”Duh.

97. Yup, plurality and runoff. The guy who gets the most votes. Get that, perfesser? Yeah, most votes wins. Period. End of story. It’s worked that way without revolution for some 200 years in this country. Your implication that it’s bad for democracy is demonstrably silly. If the most-votes-wins rule is bad for democracy, howcome it’s been the accepted method of electing leaders for 200 years and hasn’t produced any voter uprisings? Not one. Newsflash for you elitist social-engineering busybodies: the voters LIKE the plurality/runoff system. Stop trying to tell us what’s “better” for us. Stop trying to tell us we’d be happier doing it your “smart” way.Enough of the pointy-headed moonbeam voting-scheme fantasies, and laughable 200-year-old philosopher-mathematician indulgences already. Like we should take our cue from the 200 year old theories of some lazy-ass French nobleman.Back to primaries and runoffs.

98. Listen Webber (or faux-Webber, whichever you are),Your newsflash seems to assume that *you* know what *we* want. We don’t like having to sacrifice our vote for our favorite candidate just so we can avoid (or try to) electing the candidate we least prefer. That’s why *we* (not you, but the majority of Burlington voters) adopted IRV in the first place in 2005.But what *some* of us (not me, I knew in 2005 that IRV was not the same as Condorcet) didn’t realize was that IRV simply transferred that same problem to avoid to a different group of people.It unfair (in 2000) to require Nader voters to compromise their support for their favorite candidate (and switching their vote to Gore) just so they can avoid contributing to the election of their least desirable candidate (you know, that Abomination we had for 8 years). Or, to make it local, it’s unfair for Prog voters to be forced to vote for the Dem just to avoid electing the GOP.But likewise, it’s unfair to require GOP voters to vote for the Dem just to avoid electing the Prog, and that’s what IRV did in Burlington in 2009. 1513 Wright voters that picked Montroll as their second choice ain’t happy that their primary vote for Wright actually caused Kiss to win.So IRV is the Progs sticking it to the GOPs (for their own selfish benefit) and Plurality is the GOPs sticking it to the Progs and the Dems (for their own selfish benefit since it’s the only way you could possibly elect your guy in this liberal town). Your ethics are so consistent. It’s okay (with you) to stick it to the Progs and Dems, but you don’t like it when the Progs stick it to you. How convenient.How about a better way of politics. Instead of everyone trying to stick it to their opponents, why don’t we just try to be fair?

99. And BTW, Plurality Rule (which is Minority Rule unless the Plurality is more the 50%) has caused a few voter uprisings like in, oh…, Burlington Vermont in 2005. Also Cambridge MA, San Francisco CA, Minneapolis MN, St. Paul MN, some place in North Carolina that I don’t remember…What happened is that voters in Burlington anticipated the potential for a nasty outcome that some of these other towns had, a significantly unpopular and minority candidate but with a solid minority base actually *winning* office, not because the majority didn’t bother to come to the polls on Election Day, but because the majority was split between the more fringe candidate and the more centrist candidate in their camp. After a few bad experiences with that, then voters begin to learn to stick with the two parties (so as not to waste their vote with their Ralph Nader or Ross Perot) and third parties never become viable. With no third parties, then our only choice is with Dumb and Dumber. Nice choice.They anticipated the problem, but IRV was (or is) less than the optimal solution. But returning to the problem is not a solution to the problem either.

100. oh, 22% turnout is dismal. but turnout in the mayoral race is *consistently* better since 2005 than before. there is no evidence whatsoever that IRV has reduced voter turnout in *any* way. the evidence is mostly neutral (voter turnout hasn’t increased very much) or actually points the other way.but the point is that we *know* (and if you do not admit to this, i say that you are not being honest about it) that turnout to a delayed runoff is *far* *far* less than to the initial election. we can expect somewhere around *half* of the voters who came to the initial election (the sad 22% figure) to turn out for the runoff. so the mayor gets decided with an 11% voter turnout? is that reflective of the will of the people? *that* is what you are advocating for Loyal (or electing the mayor with 60% or the electorate voting against him or her).both are bad, very bad. anyone claiming that this is not a problem in need of fixing is either dumb (not understanding the issues) or is secretly hoping to use this pathology for selfish political interest to get their guy elected even when the majority of Burlington voters (that come to the polls on Election Day) do not what that person elected.IRV in Burlington did okay in 2006 and it screwed up in 2009. there is no doubt about it. but if you want to replace that with 40% Plurality Rule (or a delayed runoff with 11% of the electorate showing up), you are either being dumb about it (and acting against your own interests for democratic representation) or being cynical about it (and trying to game the system to get your minority-supported candidate elected to office).it would be nice if the two sides, rather than digging in their heels, considered a 3rd way that would have avoided the pathologies that happened in 2009 and avoids the pathologies that are well known about Plurality Rule. Plurality Rule favors the two-party system. the problem with the two-party system is that sometimes both major parties devolve into Dumb and Dumber. casting a single vote for a fresh 3rd-party voice (without being able to cover your butt with a 2nd-choice for Dumb) risks electing Dumber. so, with Plurality Rule, people end up just voting for Dumb to avoid electing Dumber.

101. “it would be nice if the two sides, rather than digging in their heels, considered a 3rd way”I’ll risk redundancy here because you seem to be a big fan of it – if this is such a big deal to you then do something about it. Otherwise you’re bitching about the weather.

102. like you, Jimmy, or anyone else, i do what i can. i can’t do anymore than i can. (as long as we’re into redundancies.)

103. So either it’s impossible to get Condorcet on the ballot, in which case there’s no point in talking about it; or it’s possible but you don’t want to expend the effort.

104. In IRV, real voters cast real ballots, which at each step are really counted and have real consequences for who is elected and who is defeated. That’s the definition of a real election.Someone here says that in a “REAL” election the candidates can gain or lose support — which is true, and important. But sooner or later, there has to be a decision. You can’t just keep voting on the same people over and over until the Second Coming or the heat death of the universe, whichever comes first. I’m sure you recognize that, which is why you’re only talking up the merits of a second election rather than, say, holding nine elections whenever there are ten candidates, dropping one candidate each time. But really, if more time for “dynamics” to help us make up our mind (as if people actually WANT to listen to more political campaigning), you should just demand the vote be held immediately before the winner is to take office. Then you’ll have all the dynamics possible.BTW, I’m a Condorcet supporter. The fact that IRV sometimes fails to elect the Condorcet winner isn’t a reason to revert to the far less Condorcet-friendly Plurality method.

105. “The fact that IRV sometimes fails to elect the Condorcet winner isn’t a reason to revert to the far less Condorcet-friendly Plurality method.”I am completely in agreement with that, Aaron.My only chide to the hard-core IRV supporters (like FairVote.org and other IRV happy talkers who continue to repeat the canard that it was a “resounding success” in 2009 and that “there was no talk of spoliers”) is not to be politically greedy.just like economic greed precedes a fall (or meltdown, like in 2008), the Progs and hardcore IRV proponents should be careful to not grab too much. they must recognize that IRV simply transferred the burden of having to think strategically about voting from themselves (they don’t have to sacrifice their vote for their “fringe” 3rd-party candidate just to avoid electing the GOP candidate they like least) to the other “fringe”, the GOP Prog-haters. the GOP Prog-haters found out that by sincerely supporting their favorite candidate (Wright), they kept their less-disliked fallback candidate (Montroll) out of the IRV final round which caused their most-disliked candidate to win the election.if IRV survives the repeal vote, what will these GOP Prog-haters be thinking at the polls in 2012? “Gee, last time I voted for my favorite, I actually helped elect my least favorite. Guess I’ll have to compromise and vote for the Dem, just to keep the Prog from winning.” that is exactly the voting strategy we were trying to avoid by adopting IRV in the first place and what we did was transfer the burden of needing to consider that strategy from the liberals in Burlington to the conservatives. that’s a legitimate reason for them to be pissed.it is *not* a legitimate reason for them to be pissed that their candidate (Wright) wasn’t elected. that is a bogus and selfish reason to oppose election reform. do they wonder why a majority of residents in this liberal town do not want their GOP candidate to be elected? do they consider themselves entitled to have their guy elected even though a majority of the electorate is opposed to their guy (in favor of any of two other specific candidates, in fact)? both Bob Kiss *and* Andy Montroll are preferred by Burlington voters over Kurt Wright. these mouth-frothing anti-IRV reactionaries don’t want to admit that Kurt Wright came in third. he is the *third* most preferred candidate for mayor in 2009, and the fig leaf of plurality doesn’t hide that fact.the problem is, the question that IRV asked voters about who they preferred between Bob Kiss and Kurt Wright (and the answer was Bob Kiss which is why he is now re-elected by IRV rules) was not asked (by IRV tabulation) of the voters about Bob Kiss and Andy Montroll. again, we know that if Andy Montroll had been in the final round with *any* other candidate, be it Kiss or Wright or Smith or Homer, Andy would have beaten that other candidate. that is why and how IRV failed the cause of democracy last March.

106. @ Webber”Yeah, most votes wins. Period. End of story. It’s worked that way without revolution for some 200 years in this country. Your implication that it’s bad for democracy is demonstrably silly. If the most-votes-wins rule is bad for democracy, howcome it’s been the accepted method of electing leaders for 200 years and hasn’t produced any voter uprisings? Not one.”So your argument is that plurality winners haven’t made people angry enough for a “revolution” or “uprising” — the lowest standard imaginable, and you’re still completely wrong. It produced a little voter uprising called the Civil War. The bloodiest, most destructive war in American history.But, you might say, we like Abraham Lincoln, we’re glad he won, we think the South was wrong to have slaves in the first place and was wrong to leave the Union, and, while we don’t like war for its own sake, if war was the only way to end slavery, it was good that the war came. And I’d agree with you. But that’s not what you said. You said, “not one”. You’ve said it over and over, in the most abject pig-ignorance.Do you see any slaves around these days? Do you see anything in domestic politics that would justify a minority forcing its will on the majority, by violence if necessary? Of course not. Therefore, the moral rights and wrongs of the 1860s are beside the point: what is relevant for us, in this discussion, is that the formal system failed catastrophically. The fact that it hasn’t been subjected to any equivalent stresses since then is pure luck.”Newsflash for you elitist social-engineering busybodies: the voters LIKE the plurality/runoff system. Stop trying to tell us what’s “better” for us. Stop trying to tell us we’d be happier doing it your “smart” way.”Seems like you’re the one telling the voters they’re wrong, because they voted for IRV in the first place.

107. @ Owen Mulligan”I was disenfranchised from that election because I did not want to rank candidates or strategize over the possible outcome. I just wanted to vote for one candidate and that’s it.”So you decide to vote as if there were a different election system, and expect everyone else to abandon duly enacted law just to accommodate you, and when they don’t, you think you’re disenfranchised? Yes, stupid you.

108. i dunno about Jimmy, but what Webber and his ilk want is for their guy to win. no matter what the electorate wants, they want to win. no matter what the will of the voters are, they think they should win. these Bushie-GOPers feel entitled to lead. they are the leadership class (like the Brahmin) and whether they are the majority or the minority at any place or time, they think that they should be the leaders and set the direction of the development of society. so they want election rules that favor themselves, even against the will of the rest of society.the Burlinton IRV election screwed up in 2009. but that fig leaf does not cover their pudenda. that fig leaf says that Andy Montroll was the preferred choice for mayor of the majority of Burlington in 2009. in 2006, it said that Bob Kiss was the preference over either Hinda Miller or Kevin Curley (or Loyal, who is hangin around these parts or Mr. Cowman). that does not cover their nakedness that says that, of the three, their guy was *least* preferred by Burlington voters. it is a matter of public record that Kurt Wright is less preferred by the majority of Burlington voters than either Bob Kiss or Andy Montroll. it is also a matter of the same public record that Andy Montroll is (or *was* on March 3, 2009) preferred over Bob Kiss by the majority of Burlington voters.why should Kurt Wright be mayor of Burlington when he is less preferred by the electorate to either Bob Kiss or Andy Montroll? the final IRV round confirmed that Wright is less preferred than Kiss, and again, the mistake that IRV made is that it didn’t consider whether or not Kiss is preferred over Montroll (or whether Wright is preferred over Montroll).they can preach their “one person, one vote” canard. it’s a lie. but they hope that if they repeat it often enough that their canard will somehow evolve in status from “falsehood” to “plausible notion” to “gospel truth”. but it won’t. lipstick won’t change that pig. every time they say “one person, one vote” we shall remind everyone that what they’re really advocating is Minority Rule. they want Minority Rule because they are the minority political group in Burlington and the only way they get to lead (unless Burlington becomes more conservative and/or Burlington Republicans become more moderate to become more attractive to moderate Dems and Progs) is to have election rules that can possibly elect their minority candidate.we see through that, and anyone who can’t is either “duh” (because they believe the canard and are acting against their own interest for representative democracy) or they are precisely those minority-party voters who cynically wish to re-stack the deck in their favor.

109. Armitage: your analogy of the Civil War to a municipal election is so ridiculous it’s beyond laughable. Get a grip.Perfesser Hyphenation: I am not a Bushie and I don’t care who wins the plurality/runoff election. Kiss, Montroll, Wright. I have my preferred candidate, but I don’t care who wins and I’ll accept the pluraility winner. Because I’m a small d democrat and a populist and a realist. You IRV and Condorcet advocates are intermeddling, elitist, social engineers.

110. “intermeddling, elitist, social engineer[ing]” means having elections that do not thwart the will of the majority of the electorate? I guess you could say the same for them damn intermeddling, elitist, social engineering, abolitionists. they just don’t know when to leave well enough alone.see no hyphens!r b-j(Doh!)

111. The only appropriate way to pick a mayor is for me to pick one. Since that method has exactly the same chance of being enacted as Condorcet, I demand equal time – prepare yourselves for a multi-day, multi-thousand-word tirade supporting my position and calling the rest of you a bunch of idiots.

112. Jimmy, in a traditional election with a runoff, does that mean that if the candidate you picked is not in the runoff that you don’t vote?

113. You don’t understand. The winning candidate will receive 100% of the vote, because there will be only one vote, mine. Prepare for hours of condescending lecturing that will convince no one and doesn’t matter anyway because my method isn’t on the ballot.

114. Robert Bristow-Johnson;Well, um… I’m a Republican.We agree on election methods. Let’s advocate it on its merits, which are considerable. Once you start throwing in partisan attacks on the other side, members of that party (who, in case you haven’t noticed, are again becoming the larger of the two) are going to suspect you, with some reason, of putting one over on them. Ultimately that’s unjustified, but you’re not helping.Webber;You were the one who introduced the topic by claiming we have to keep plurality (or plurality plus runoff) because it hasn’t caused any revolutions or uprisings. Which is wrong, as anyone who knows American history is aware of.Now you’re retreating to the fact that it’s a municipal election. So what’s the argument here? That it doesn’t matter if you use a bad method because it’s just a city? But you’re also saying that IRV is a bad method and plurality plus runoff is a good one, and therefore you should use plurality. Which is it?A small d democrat would favor letting the majority govern, if they can. A populist would be against electing a candidate who a majority would rather see lose to any other plausible candidate. A realist would prefer systems that work reliably, not systems that break on a regular basis.Jimmy;Go ahead. Don’t just threaten the hours of lecturing, lay it on us. Cause I don’t think you’ve actually got any kind of argument at all. Certainly none that a democrat would bother with.

115. no Jimmy, i think you make my point perfectly.we need a method that is fair for us collectively, not a method that is fair to the Progs/Liberals (at the expense of the GOP Prog-haters) or one that is fair to the GOP Prog-haters (at the expense of the Prog/Dem/Liberals).

116. Robert – then do something about it. I want enough money in my kid’s 529 plan to pay for college but I don’t spend all day online telling people that, I go out and try to get it.Aaron – I was making a joke. I’m astounded that anyone would miss that.

117. just another promotional plug (until i can find some place to host this), i have a paper written last March titled””The Failure of Instant Run-off Voting to accomplish the very purposes for which it was adopted:An object lesson in Burlington Vermont”it outlines 4 principles for why IRV was adopted and shows how it failed the first two principles in 2009. it actually failed principle 3 by penalizing the GOP Prog-haters for sincerely voting for their favorite candidate (they were “rewarded” in that their votes actually elected the candidate they least preferred) and that calls on voters to vote strategically.email me at rbj@audioimagination.com and i’ll send you a copy.

118. Jimmy;Yes, I knew. It’s a joke that doesn’t work, because there’s no case for letting you have the only vote, but there’s a strong case for Condorcet.

119. Candidate A: 41%Candidate B: 39%Candidates C-F: 5% eachCandidate A wins.Tough shit. Suck it up. B-F LOST. Now go away.

120. “there’s no case for letting you have the only vote, but there’s a strong case for Condorcet.”Yet strangely enough, both of our methods have exactly the same chance of being enacted.Get it?

121. “Candidate A: 41%Candidate B: 39%Candidates C-F: 5% eachCandidate A wins.Tough shit. Suck it up. B-F LOST.”not if Candidates C-F are a lot more like Candidate B than A in the minds of the electorate. why should they put up with Mayor A when 59% think he’s a piece of crap?”Now go away.””I’ll be back.”

122. Aaron:”Well, um… I’m a Republican.We agree on election methods. Let’s advocate it on its merits, which are considerable. Once you start throwing in partisan attacks on the other side, members of that party (who, in case you haven’t noticed, are again becoming the larger of the two) are going to suspect you, with some reason, of putting one over on them. Ultimately that’s unjustified, but you’re not helping.”my apologies. i got a little punchy with the “Perfesser” stuff.actually, i think the majority of Wright voters (those that like Bob Kiss the least) have a legit gripe about what IRV did to them in 2009. but that Wright wasn’t elected is not a legit gripe. there is no justifiable reason for Wright to have been elected, even with an initial plurality. in 2006, Bob Kiss was the Plurality winner, the IRV winner, *and* the Condorcet winner. but if IRV (or Condorcet) always agreed with the plurality winner, there wouldn’t be any reason for adopting it over plurality. but i voted for IRV in 2005 because i hoped it would normally elect the Condorcet winner (and it did in 2006), but last year we had an interesting scenario: a *very* strong centrist candidate whose base is slightly smaller than either the bases for the two wings, the Progs and GOP. so then it boils down to which side the centrists would be on and it shouldn’t suprize anyone that the centrists in Burlington are more on the side with the Progs than the GOP. but that still leaves unanswered who of the left coalition wins. IRV favors the largest subgroup (Progs vs. Dems) in the largest group (liberals vs. conservatives in Burlington) whereas Condorcet favors the centrist (the Right, even though they lost, still have some pull on the outcome). that’s the political angle.but it’s no reason to use Condorcet as an election method. the reason to elect the Condorcet winner is that this is the candidate favored by the voters over any other candidate when the voters are asked to choose between the two. that is the only reason and that is good enough.

123. “why should they put up with Mayor A when 59% think he’s a piece of crap?”Because she won the election. Duh. Because she got more votes than the other candidates. Because your candidate didn’t get enough votes. Because the other 59% didn’t get together and put up a winner. In three years you and all of your friends can get together and vote the “piece of crap” out of office.Kind of simple, huh? Real elections.

124. sure, it’s simple when there are only two choices. “most votes” is the same as “majority”. there can even be times when there are 3 choices and “most votes” = majority (a popular candidate who gets 51% while the two others divide the remaining 49%).but you’re advocating Minority Rule. you’re advocating that the 59% majority must vote strategically to “get together and put up a winner”. when IRV advocates claim that IRV creates and incentive to vote strategically, they may be correct (by the 2009 IRV punishing the GOP Prog-haters by turning their 1st-choice vote for Wright into a vote that elected Kiss over Montroll), but they conveniently ignore the fact that “First Past the Post” or FPTP (this is what other pointy-headed election method geeks call the traditional plurality system) rewards strategic voting for an even larger group of people, the Majority.so the anti-IRVers cry that IRV causes (or encourages) strategic voting, but fail to mention that it imposes that incentive to vote strategically upon a minority of voters. they haven’t come to terms with fact that FPTP is *widely* known, for centuries, to cause strategic voting upon the *majority* of voters when this majority of voters together support either one of two candidates. these anti-IRVers hope to split that vote, because it’s the only way to get their *minority* supported candidate elected.so again, why should the 59% majority put up with Mayor A if they think he’s a piece of crap? why should the *majority* have to choose (strategically) between their favorite and their second favorite just to prevent the widely disliked minority candidate from being elected? you haven’t been able to answer that question at all without circular argument.it is *your* candidate A that didn’t get enough votes (41%). your candidate needs to get to 50% + 1 vote to be the clear choice of the electorate and she didn’t get it. you say, without justification, that “she won the election.” no, she didn’t. one wins the election by the rules.e.g., the reason that it is known that W stole the election in 2000 is *not* because he lost the popular vote and won with the Electoral College. those were the rules. the reason the election is known to be stolen is that the U.S. Constitution says that it is a matter *purely* of state law that determines how the state’s electors are chosen, the final arbiter of Florida state law is the Florida Supreme Court and they clearly ruled that Florida law says that an election with less than 1/4% margin of victory gets hand counted. by circumventing that, they didn’t play by the rules.but, until the rules are changed, a prez candidate that loses the popular vote yet wins the electoral vote wins the election. until the rules are changed a Burlington mayoral candidate that has the plurality of 1st-choice votes but is rejected by the majority of Burlington voters in favor of another specific candidate, that candidate *loses*. just saying without justification that “she won the election Duh” doesn’t cut it. it’s circular reasoning. you’re simply saying that the reason to identify that the plurality winner should win the election is “because she won the election. Duh.””Duh” is right.can you do a little better to justify your case?

125. i said “when IRV advocates claim that IRV creates and incentive to vote strategically …”meant to say “when anti-IRV advocates claim that IRV creates and incentive to vote strategically…” or “when IRV detractors claim that IRV creates and incentive to vote strategically…”it’s like the Wicked Bible (look that one up, Web). sometimes a missing word changes the meaning of things.

126. geez i gotta proof-read better: should be “when anti-IRV advocates claim that IRV creates an incentive to vote strategically”

127. Overheard in a discussion about Repeal IRV — “Pro-IRV gives smaller parties in Burlington a chance to compete with big parties.” Support IRV to elect a Republican mayor? The fact is that before IRV, Burlington elected mayors from three different parties — Dem, Rep, Prog. Yet the perception is that the only way small parties can compete is with the help of IRV. Another tricky twist of of logic that is circulating is the idea that IRV is majority voting! That defies reason given the facts of the recent election. A Mayor was elected by 12% of the registered voters and three different candidates had the distinction of being a winner based on plurality, majority or.. I forget what the other one was, but I ask, a majority of what? What is wrong with a simple system where the candidate with the most votes wins?

128. “Irv must go. It is simple as that.”no Loyal, it is *not* as simple as that. to take the position that you take, it’s like any alternative to IRV is better. sorta like the Abomination of the just ended decade. “anyone but W” can make sense and was vindicated in 2008 when everything tanked. but you’re taking the “anything but IRV” and you haven’t engaged any of the issues regarding the problems that 40+% Plurality (or delayed runoff) have. and that’s surprizing since it’s the liberals in Burlington that are so aware of what Plurality does to 3rd parties. we adopted IRV in 2005 because we *knew* the danger of Plurality to elect a candidate opposed by 60% of the town. the Progs and Dems have every right to see themselves as different political parties with many common goals. forcing the Progs and Dems to somehow combine support specifically behind a *single* candidate is what the GOP anti-IRV types want. that’s why i’m suprized to see you on that side. it’s okay, but i cannot see how you are acting in either your own political interest *or* for the best interest of the multiparty town we live in.”we have a mayor who has 29 percent.”no, it’s more like 52% (compared to Wright’s 48%) but the problem is that he’s 46% next to Andy’s 54%. and Wright loses to both Montroll and Kiss. that is the incontrovertible fact that the GOPers don’t wanna admit.the alternative that you are supporting is worse, its danger is that of electing the *least* supported candidate of the three either with a plurality or, if it goes to runoff, the GOPers think that more of them will show up at the polls on Runoff Day. but *that* is what is truly gaming the system.”does that sound like right to you. with irv the canadates have not run real good campaigns.”oh, so let’s go back to Plurality so we can entertain ourselves watching the mud fly?i think the candidates did pretty good outlining their differences where they had them.”when IRV is gone all the canadates will be fighting for votes and we will get real campaigns.”wha…? fight with what? guns? machetes? mud?what punches were they pulling last March, Loyal? might you enlighten us to specifically which blows they didn’t land?Loyal, step back and look where you’re standing. you’re on the right side most of the time (IRV notwithstanding BTW, i met you at Eli’s house.)In fact since you had some part in the Ward 7 race, you should be directly aware of how the delayed runoff may have directly messed up that election. Vince Dober cannot claim any mandate when he squeaks by with a come-from-behind but half the Election Day voters show up. That should be another pretty good example of the Delayed-Runoff experiment (inconclusive, perhaps a failure), which is what motivated the call to the Ranked-order Ballot (which IRV uses) instead. IRV tabulated that ranked ballot poorly in 2009, that is most certainly true. Condorcet would do better, but losing the ranked-order ballot is far worse. IRV may have done far better than what the old rules might have done. i’ll bet, if we never had IRV and Kurt Wright beat Bob Kiss in runoff with half the normal electorate showing up (and just squeaks by), you’ld be on the other side.

129. Loyal,In fact, I am even more intrigued that you’ld be on that side, since you’ve runned for mayor yourself in 2006.So Loyal, you’re not going to win an election for Mayor of Burlington, why run? I would have earlier presumed that it’s because there is a specific statement, perhaps on a specific issue, that you want to make and with more people voting for you, that statement gets made a little more loudly.But even if I liked what you were saying and I wanted to join in and make the political statement with you, how could I do that with Plurality? Unless you were nominated by one of the big 3 had a support constituency and I thought you had better than an ice cube’s chance in hell of winning, I could not would not throw away my “single vote” on your candidacy. Whose votes do you think you’ld be wasting? That of the Prog, the Dem, or the GOP? Because with Plurality, a vote for Loyal Ploof is one less vote for one of them and it’s one of them that’s gonna win and I might want to have a stake in which of the viable candidates wins.Whereas with a Ranked-Order Ballot, I can make my political statement voting for Loyal or the Cowman (or Dan Smith) and still cover my butt and not elect the candidate I support the least. Plurality favors dichotomy; the two-party system. IRV favors 3rd parties, Independents, and the like.Your opposition to the ranked ballot is very strange and self-defeating.

130. “Overheard in a discussion about Repeal IRV — ‘Pro-IRV gives smaller parties in Burlington a chance to compete with big parties.’ Support IRV to elect a Republican mayor?”It could happen if Burlington evolved to be a more conservative city (with more Dems leaning right than left) and the GOP candidate was popular for non-partisan reasons (charismatic or ultra-competent or apparently squeeky-clean and real, who knows?) and moderate. I don’t see how that couldn’t happen. But the reason to not give up on the Ranked Ballot is that we know that Plurality favors a two-party system by penalizing those who throw away their vote on the candidate that ends up third or lower in the only count that seems important to you.But with a ranked-order ballot, we know how each anonymous voter would choose between any pair of candidates. If you like Loyal Ploof better than any other candidate, you can vote for him as #1. It still means that if the election were between two *viable* candidates (one whom you like better than the other), an election that has consequence, you can still have a voice in that. but, if it were Plurality you could not do that. If Loyal had a little movement behind him, something that could develop into another (4th or 5th) party, he would be perceived as taking votes away from one or the other viable candidates. And voting for Loyal would not help (and in a dichotomy, that means “harm”) the viable candidate one supports. Loyals 3rd or 4th or 5th party would have to overcome that adversity, in order for it to be relevant. “The fact is that before IRV, Burlington elected mayors from three different parties — Dem, Rep, Prog. Yet the perception is that the only way small parties can compete is with the help of IRV.”Progs are now a viable, credible party. One reason I’ve been disappointed with them about this is that, although they would be quick to point out how a change back to Plurality would favor the GOP candidate, they don’t admit that hanging on to specifically IRV, despite the legitimate complaints about it, *does* favor their party, because they are the majority of the majority. The larger subgroup (Prog vs. Dem) or the larger group (liberals vs. conservatives) in Burlington. But it is no good reason to advocate for an election method, just because one favors (for that particular time) the political group one identifies with.Hell, you can say that Condorcet favors the centrist candidate, because for voters in the left or right wing, after their 1st-choice fringe candidate, their 2nd-choice is likely not going to be for the candidate on the other fringe. Their 2nd-choice is likely for the centrist candidate and Condorcet makes more use out of 2nd-choice votes than does IRV.But because an election method tends to (at a particular town and era) favor some group or another is not a good reason to use it. Because Condorcet tends to favor the current centrist group is no reason to use it. The reason that the Condorcet winner should win the election is that this is the candidate that the majority of voters prefer against any other candidate.IRV is not Condorcet (unfortunately) and we saw directly that it is not in 2009. But sometimes IRV elects the Condorcet candidate. Here, in Burlington, we’ve only done it twice and it’s 1 for 2 so far. It might be interesting to find out in other IRV towns like Cambridge MA or Mpls. MN or SF CA, how often their IRV elections elected the Condorcet candidate.But we know that IRV has a better chance than Plurality of electing the Condocet candidate. In our 2009 example, the Condorcet candidate, the single candidate whom the majority of voters say is better than any other candidate, that candidate would not have been in the delayed runoff. The only “reform” that the old election rule could have offered the 2009 mayoral election in Burlington is increase the possibility that the candidate liked the *least* (out of the big 3) gets elected. That’s worse.

131. @ Perfesser BJ: if you had put just a tiny fraction of the effort you’ve put into posting and arguing on this blog into getting your fancy Condorcet proposal on the ballot, you might just have gotten it on the ballot.

132. Web, you have no idea of what you’re talking about.i’ve been to NPAs and even one of the initial anti-IRV meetings with White Papers, poster board, numbers and facts.and a petition.people are deaf. people don’t want to listen (including you). people would rather chant their chants and be polarized than *think*. this is repeated in many political situations. why is it that we had to choose between Dumb and Dumber instead of Dean and Dumber in 2004?one of the reasons for having 3rd parties and/or credible independent candidates is so we can have a choice other than Dumb and Dumber. but plurality favors the two-party system. this is why we need a ranked-order ballot. too bad that whomever thunked up “hey, let’s have a ranked ballot in Burlington” decided to attach that ballot to the dumb IRV tabulation rules. but the 40%+ Plurality rules are dumber.so again, this March, our choice is between Dumb and Dumber. how nice.maybe *after* this March, whoever loses will be listening (but there is no guarantee of that) and we can get 1700 signatures for Condorcet. because, whoever loses will be better off with Condorcet than what they’re gonna get. and whoever wins will have their *legitimate* gripes addressed with Condorcet.it’s just dumb.

133. You want simple? Here are the simple facts:1) A preference voting system like IRV is by far a much fairer method to use than the “simple” winner-take-all plurality system in the case when there are more than two viable candidates;2) This means that more voters wre happy and/or comfortable with the prospect of Kiss as mayor than they would have been with any of the other candidates assuming the post;3) This is because IRV corrects the biggest flaw and frustration of the old plurality system: the spoiler problem.Hey, if you still don’t get it, then just vote the old way and don’t specify your second, third, etc. preferences. Under the IRV system, you still retain the right to only vote for your first choice. But don’t you dare pretend that forcing others to vote their fears rather than their hopes is not a “problem.” With all due respect, “Webber,” what don’t you get about any of the above?

134. With all due respect, Russ (and you and I are voting the same way on March 2), there are some important facts that you need to know.Your point #2: In Burlington’s IRV in 2009 (these pathologies did not happen in 2006), it turned out to *not* be the case “that more voters were happy and/or comfortable with the prospect of Kiss as mayor than they would have been with any of the other candidates assuming the post”. More voters would have been happy and/or comfortable with the prospect of Montroll as mayor than Kiss. The IRV election actually suffered the Thwarted Majority pathology. It elected the wrong candidate, from the POV of the majority of Burlington voters.Your point #3: It turns out also to be untrue that “IRV corrects the biggest flaw and frustration of the old plurality system: the spoiler problem”. It did not. A spoiler is a *loser* of an election whose presence in the election (and on the ballot) actually changes who the winner is. To be spoiler-free means that removing any loser from the election will not change who the winner is. Kurt Wright was precisely that spoiler (perhaps not intending to be such). If Wright was not in the race and everyone voted for the remaining candidates just like they had on March 3, Andy Montroll, not Bob Kiss, would be the mayor.The numbers supporting these conclusions are all in the public record.Would you like me to send you a paper that spells it out? (and it’s not a pile of anti-IRV drivel.) send me your email address to rbj@audioimagination.com and i’ll send you a copy.While it may not seem like it, we actually *are* on the same side, sorta. But I do try to correct any “happy talk” about the success of IRV in Burlington in 2009. IRV screwed up last March, but the old 40%+ Plurality/Delayed_Runoff method would have done no better and could very well have done worse, far worse.

135. Gee, Russ. I guess YOU don’t know what YOU’RE talking about. Kiss was NOT the most popular candidate. You’re spewing Prog talking points. Hit the road.

136. Thanks for your thoughtful response, Robert, one that concentrated on debating facts and was respectfully written. I do know that IRV is occasionally subject to mathematical anomalies and that such a situation could have been said to have occurred during the last Burlington mayoral election. Perhaps I could’ve and should’ve chosen more precise wording to describe the end result in that race; however, I still stand by my main point – one that you “happily” agree with – which is that preference voting systems – take your pick from among IRV, Borda, Condorcet, etc., whichever would’ve worked best in the Burlington case – are still much better than the old plurality method.As far as your response is concerned, Webber, I just want you to know that while the Vermont Progressives are indeed my party of choice, I have been an advocate of preference voting systems like IRV for a long time and I don’t take my cue from any party’s “talking points” agenda items. IRV just seems the fairer way to go to me. (And I suppose it wasn’t quite “fair” of me to single you out in my prior post, so I apologize for putting you on the defensive like that.)

137. Fair enough. No problem.

138. IRV leads to two party domination: “The three IRV countries: Ireland (mandated in their 1937 constitution), Australia and Malta (and more recently Fiji for a brief period of IRV democracy before its coup) all are 2-party dominated (in IRV seats) – despite having many other features in their governments which would seem much more multiparty-genic than the USA with IRV added will ever have. So you can be sure the USA with IRV would be 2-party dominated too.” – from the Center for Range Voting’s report “Why does IRV lead to 2-party domination? http://www.instantrunoffvoting.us/3rdparty.html

Comments are closed.