A group of Burlington residents have garnered the necessary 1654 signatures to put a simple question to voters: Should Burlington revert to its old way of electing its mayor?
Instant runoff voting (IRV) — which allows voters to rank candidates as a way to choose a winner on election day rather than holding costly separate runoff elections – was perhaps the most controversial element in a five-way race for mayor in March.
If there is no majority winner (50-plus percent) after all first-place ballots are counted, candidates who statistically can’t win are eliminated, and their second-place votes are distributed among the remaining candidates. This process is repeated until someone with 50 percent of the vote emerges.
If IRV is repealed, then the next election for mayor will revert to the old system: A simple plurality (40 percent) wins the day. If no one has 40 percent on election night, then a special runoff between the top two candidates will be held 30 days later.
A multipartisan group calling itself “One Person, One Vote” held a press conference Tuesday afternoon in a City Hall conference room to declare that IRV was a convoluted system that frustrated voters and may have depressed voter turnout.
“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. I think it’s extremely convoluted and that voters don’t understand how it works.”
If that’s true, it would be a slight turnaround from a poll conducted in 2006 — the first year IRV was used in Burlington to elect a mayor.
In 2006, a University of Vermont professor and his students polled Burlingtonians about their understanding of IRV and found that 63.4 percent of voters said they liked IRV, while 17.9 percent disliked it and 18.7 percent did not have an opinion or didn’t know whether they liked it. Those with a postgraduate degree liked IRV more than those with a high school diploma or less. Only about 8 percent of those polled found the system confusing.
Several of the IRV opponents, including Ewing, backed Republican Kurt Wright for mayor this past March. Another Wright supporter, David Hartnett, also collected signatures for the group and said this was more than a sour grapes campaign.
“This has been a grassroots effort,” noted Hartnett. “We waited to bring in the signatures because we didn’t want this to be about Kurt Wright losing after being ahead, or Andy Montroll who had more first and second place votes and didn’t win. We wanted this to be about IRV. In fact, I don’t think a lot of people understood what they were voting for in 2005 when they approved it.”
Hartnett and other IRV opponents said after two mayoral elections it was time for voters to weigh in — again — on whether the voting system was working.
“There was a lot on the ballot that year, and IRV got kinda lost in the shuffle,” said Hartnett. “In the next two and a half months there will be time to focus on IRV.”
Hartnett and others said that, while the lion’s share of early grassroots energy this year emanated from the New North End, petitioners come from throughout the city and represent all major political parties in the Queen City.
Also joining Hartnett and Ewing at Tuesday’s event was Sam Osborne, a prominent Burlington Democrat, Chuck Saleen, a New North End Democrat, and Linda Chagnon of the New North End. Chagnon alone netted roughly 500 signatures.
Ewing and other IRV opponents said the system has done nothing to increase voter turnout. In fact, only 27 percent of registered voters turned up at the polls in March 2009, which seems pretty dismal.
That can be compared with a voter turnout of slightly more than 30 percent in 2006. That said, 2009 had a better turnout than 2003 (22.3 percent) and 2001 (18.7 percent).
In March 2009, there were five candidates on the ballot, four of whom ran strong campaigns: Progressive Bob Kiss (incumbent), then-Councilor Andy Montroll (Democrat), James Simpson (Green Party), Independent Dan Smith and then-Councilor Wright.
Here’s how the vote broke down on election night: In the first round, Wright had 2951 (33%) votes to Kiss’ 2585 (29%) and Montroll’s 2063 (23%).
In the second round, Wright had 3294 (37%) to Kiss’ 2981 (34%) and Montroll’s 2554 (29%) after Smith’s and Simpson’s votes were eliminated and their voters’ second preferences divvied up among the other three candidates.
In the final round, Montroll was eliminated and 1332 of his preferences went to Kiss, while 767 went to Wright. That put Kiss on top with 4313 (51.5%) and Wright with 4061 (48%).
Hence the inspiration behind this T-shirt, which offered a new definition of IRV: “Keep Counting ’Til Bob Wins.”
In 2006, it also took Kiss more than one round to win a majority of votes, but he was in the lead in both rounds against his closest challenger — Democrat Hinda Miller.
This year, however, the margin was close enough that Wright asked for a recount. Wright called off the hand recount as soon as it was clear that it was not differing from the election night results.
Here was my take in a “Fair Game” column shortly after the election, after some fumed that Wright had the election stolen from him. I mean, really, who would have thought a left-leaning, liberal city would pass on putting a Republican in the mayor’s office? Incroyable!
IRV proponents noted at the time, and will undoubtedly note again in the coming months, that IRV worked as it was designed.
They said the ranking system saves time and money by allowing voters to rank their candidates and take care of the runoff the same night. Also, fewer voters actually take part in separate runoff elections.
But that doesn’t stop folks from claiming hell froze over last March. Vermont GOP Chairman Rob Roper called Kiss’ reelection a “travesty” and claimed the “will of the voters was circumvented.”
Was it true? I decided to look more closely at how the votes broke down, and here’s what I found:
People may not be happy that Kiss was reelected, and certainly at today’s press conference the word “leadership” was tossed around a lot — mostly in a negative sense. As in, Kiss offers none.
Look, it’s no secret that Wards 4 and 7 are more conservative than other parts of the city and that they were going to go overwhelmingly for Wright. And they did.
The question for March 2010, however, is how much of the anti-IRV effort is truly a referendum on IRV, and how much is a referendum on Mayor Kiss. His term isn’t up, technically, until 2012, but a spate of leadership crises related to Burlington Telecom, the Moran Plant redevelopment and the loss of General Dynamics practically put Kiss in the lame duck category. And to think it’s only the guy’s first year of a three-year term.
Sounds like IRV could soon find itself another fossilized relic that anthropologists hundreds of years from now use to define what could be dubbed Burlington’s Progressazoic Era.
This article appears in Dec 30, 2009 – Jan 5, 2010.
Got something to say?
Send a letter to the editor and we'll publish your feedback in print!
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
“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.
You have to get *other* people to sign the signatures. And it takes more than one crying in the wilderness to do the canvassing.
“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.