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If IRV is repealed, then the next election for mayor will revert to the old system: A simple plurality (40 percent) wins the day.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!
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
Fair enough. No problem.
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.)
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.
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.
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?
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.
@ 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.