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If IRV is repealed, then the next election for mayor will revert to the old system: A simple plurality (40 percent) wins the day.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!
@Sean You said, “Progs and Independents seem to have gotten elected to the Mayor’s office and City Council BEFORE the introduction of IRV…” That was *exactly* my point: the people of Burlington clearly want more than two parties (since we saw third party candidates elected many times even under plurality voting). Since Burlington wants more than two parties, we need a voting system that works with more than two parties—IRV being one of those systems. David Zuckerman already talked about some of the problems Burlington had with third parties under plurality voting, so I won’t repeat what he said. I will add that just because a third party candidate was elected doesn’t necessarily mean that the system “worked” since it could have still been subject to the flaws of plurality voting that I mentioned before. Whether or not a third party candidate was elected is not a good test of whether or not the will of the voters was reflected in the final outcome. The point of IRV is *not* to elect third party candidates—the point is to reflect the will of the voters in the final outcome when there *are* more than two candidates.
yes Webber, ha hahhah hahaha… . If I understand things correctly, what’s being advocated by the IRV detractors is a return to the old style of voting, not an improvement in runoff voting itself. so let’s do muddy the waters while there is time; float more ideas, not less.
Karen, the problem is that a provisional second ballot is still a hypothetical election:”Dear Voter, thank you for casting your ballot. But it’s not over. Please now cast a second ballot. How would you vote if the race were between ______ and ______?”That’s not a real election. Real elections have their own dynamics that hypothetical elections simply do not and cannot. Issues emerge. Candidates do and say things during the runoff period that may impress voters or turn them off. It’s very possible that Mrs. Voter above could come to a different decision in the actual runoff election than she did in the hypothetical instant runoff. That’s called an election. That’s called democracy.We should all want REAL elections. Saving time and money is absolutely not a valid reason for not holding real elections! This is America, not Techmerica.I have a great idea! IRV is so yesterday! Let’s have Instant Predictive Voting (IPV)! The elite/superior people (and we all know who they are) get to decide who we really SHOULD vote for, and we simply make that person our Mayor. Only people who are smart enough and politically correct enough should be allowed to vote anyway, right? If people were really informed and qualified to vote, we know how the result would come out, right? So let’s skip this messy, expensive, and unpredictable election thing altogether.
IRV has led to only one lively debate in its existence.That of IRV.The two mayoral elections with it have been riddled by candidates not wanting to offend a base of voters that is not even their own base of voters. Not the fault of the candidates but of the system.One of the biggest thing it has accomplished is the underhanded side of campaigns.Lets not debate the real issues firmly, but let underhanded politics, like digging up a former business partner of Hinda Miller to throw a little mud shortly before an election. This little trick had nothing to do with candidates capabilities, but was just plain mud throwing, and an easy way to get off topic and try to grab a few votes, while avoiding the real issues.Same can be said for what happened to Andy Montroll.In closing, what did this underhanded campaigning lead to?Underhandedness in City Hall. I need cite no more than the BT debacle created by the administration.Repeal IRV in March, restore the city and its system to credibility, and try to run the city the way it should be.Open, fair and transparent, it is not that way now.
“There is a small active group of people who are vehemently opposed and they are going to try to repeal it. That too is Democracy. Lets see what happens.”IRV gave us Bob Kiss and his posse. Game over.
Compromise: We could change the process slightly, to have folks given an actual second ballot to turn in on election day, to be activated only in the case that their own first choice is eliminated. Perhaps this would more closely align with their idea of a runoff election, thereby becoming easier for them to comprehend. Yes it would be dummying the process down, and I don’t mean to seem condescending. It would be a bit of an added expense to administrate, but no where near as expensive as a runoff election at a future date. If it helps to convey the concept, and if it is less expensive than administering a second election date, then it might be a worthy compromise.
“As for “jimmy”, Bob did not get the third most first place votes. He was second. Facts matter.”So what did he learn from that? Interesting that you didn’t even try to answer the question.”if you are writing under a ficticious name then live the consequences”Gee, thanks for setting the rules for us, “David Zuckerman.” Here’s one for you, run your posts through a spell checker before hitting the Post button.
@ Zuckerman: “IRV is easy to understand.”That’s a joke. A sad, sad joke. As Haik (and many others since 2006) has explained, it’s terribly complicated and convoluted. Nobody really understands how the counting works except diehard politicos and Prog zealots. Sure, you can say, “you rank your choices.” But if you think the average voter understands how his or her second and third place votes will affect the overall outcome of the election, you’re just not being honest. You know what’s easy to understand? One person, one vote, and one election at a time. If the first place finisher in the election doesn’t garner a suffucient majority, we have a runoff between the first place finisher and the second place finisher — a real, actual, human election with debates and everything, with the possibility that the SECOND PLACE FINISHER might actually change minds and prevail.A system that served the city well for about 200 years. A system that allowed the poor, victimized “third party” to rule Burlington for well over 20 years. There was no problem. IRV is a solution in search of a problem.Real elections. Democracy. What a concept. Now THAT’s easy to understand.
A little fact checking-Sean: “That’s 14 years, folks, without IRV!” Actually it’s 24 years.David:“IRV allows for voter choice without the lesser overall supported candidate winning”As the Condorcet winner, Andy had the greater overall support and he lost. Bob had the lessor overall support and he won.David:“Under the “old” system most of the elections did not have a credible strong “third” candidate.”The fact is most of those elections didn’t even have a credible second party candidate. Who are we kidding? And I would again have to point to 1995 when Clavelle was not the incumbent, and there were three credible candidates in the race. David: “It is quite clear that between voters supporting Andy, Dan and Bob that Kurt was not supported with any depth beyond his initial core support of about 35%. Whereas Bob (or Andy for that matter) had broader support. Certainly Kurt ended up just above 40%…”You are conflating breadth and depth. IRV measures breadth of support. Not so much depth like a real runoff. And in the end Bob and Kurt each had around 50%. Bob just over. Kurt just under. Kurt did not end up “just above 40%,” he ended up just under 50%.****One other thing I’d like to add to this discussion pertains to the one person-one vote concept.While it is true that under IRV, each person has only one effective vote, it is also true that if in the first round I vote for one of the eventual top two round 1 vote getters, I am forced to vote for that same candidate again in each runoff round, whereas someone who votes for one of the round 1 losers gets to “come back” to the theoretical “runoff” election and choose somebody else.Let me put it another way- I voted for Bob as my first choice last year. That means in the final runoff, I voted for Bob again over Kurt. In a real live runoff, I would have been able to change my mind and vote for Kurt.And the second and third place choices of those who voted for losers are looked at, where my second and third place choices never are.****It’s hard to separate legitimacy from the perception of legitimacy. Perceived legitimacy matters in elections. Even if IRV really might be fairer system (despite the flawed and dangerous mechanics of having to transport ballots for counting) it has to be perceived as a fairer system for that to matter, and the fact is a lot of people just don’t understand it. Most people don’t know the definition of the word “plurality.” Most people equate “most votes” with “majority.” And most people feel intuitively that the person with the most votes should win.You know- Screw IRV! It’s a complication and a headache that nobody needs. Everything was fine before. I think the city will vote to go back to the old system.Want to make it interesting Dave? I’ll bet you twenty bucks we vote to go back to the old system.
Sean-Under the “old” system most of the elections did not have a credible strong “third” candidate. Once the incumbent was in (whether Bernie or Peter) they were able to stay in office in part because the voting system made it so many people discouraged a strong Dem campaign. In those situations many people were either discouraged from running or voters were discouraged from voting for the D (by their friends/allies/whoever) because of the fear of electing the Republican. So while I am a Progressive and it probably suited us better to have the power of incumbency, the system was not as good for Democracy.I happen to think that regardless of Party or level of power, it is better to have a system that encourages voting for one’s first choice rather than strategic voting.As for “jimmy”, Bob did not get the third most first place votes. He was second. Facts matter. Many would argue that in fact this system shows how vote splitting does occur and that a system such as IRV allows for voter choice without the lesser overall supported candidate winning.It is quite clear that between voters supporting Andy, Dan and Bob that Kurt was not supported with any depth beyond his initial core support of about 35%. Whereas Bob (or Andy for that matter) had broader support. Certainly Kurt ended up just above 40%…so does that mean he should be Mayor? no…because he only got above 40% when there were two candidates left (I.E. the other one…Bob…had well more than he).I do think that voters like Bradley will prevail. Those of us who tend to be more partisan forget that the vast majority of voters could care less about Party and vote for individuals. The idea of more choices (the American dream right) is one that most people like. IRV is easy to understand. There is a small active group of people who are vehemently opposed and they are going to try to repeal it. That too is Democracy. Lets see what happens.As for impersonations…if you are writing under a ficticious name then live the consequences. Put your real name up and then you can complain about others using the same name. (And, I might add, it is not me…I am proud enough of my words and am willing to defend them…so I put my real name)