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If IRV is repealed, then the next election for mayor will revert to the old system: A simple plurality (40 percent) wins the day.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!
“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.
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.
“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.
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?
geez i gotta proof-read better: should be “when anti-IRV advocates claim that IRV creates an incentive to vote strategically”
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.
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?
“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.
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.
“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.”