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If IRV is repealed, then the next election for mayor will revert to the old system: A simple plurality (40 percent) wins the day.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!
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.
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.
“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.
And thanks to your pals Kiss and Leopold for helping out so much with the repeal effort. Prolly couldna done it without em.
“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.
@ 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.
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.
@ 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.
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.
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.