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If IRV is repealed, then the next election for mayor will revert to the old system: A simple plurality (40 percent) wins the day.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 offers more democracy. Let’s keep it.
A runoff election is a REAL election.An instant runoff is a fake election.I prefer real. I prefer democracy.Step backwards.
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.
“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.
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 …
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.
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.
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.
“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.
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.