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If IRV is repealed, then the next election for mayor will revert to the old system: A simple plurality (40 percent) wins the day.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!
“Could Kiss still win another election, now? Well, if Kurt Wright AND Ed Adrian run against him, he just might”You have to be kidding.
“I actually spend little time on this”Really? So who’s writing your daily rambles on this subject, because someone’s spending some time on them.”If attacking my spelling is the best you can do, then I am fine with that”Well, I also pointed out that you were unable to back up your claim that candidates learned from IRV results. Specifically, I asked for a any proof that Bob Kiss had learned anything at all from the fact that a Republican received more first place votes than he did. Since you ignored that and focused on an offhanded comment about your poor spelling, I guess we’re not going to hear it.
Americans are hard-wired for 2-way contests. It provides clarity, a clear mandate to the winners, and at the least, closure for and acceptance by the losers. The 3-way race is guaranteed to deliver none of the above, with or without IRV, or any advanced civics lessons.The current IRV hash is only the latest example how the 3-way race can frustrate the electorate, and we’ve had these regularly for 25+ years. If Kurt had won with IRV, everyone in the New North End would think IRV is the greatest thing since pockets. And the Progressives would have been rounding up those petitions.Deep down, I think the “Prog haters” are well aware that it’s their own lack of self discipline that handed the Progressives their minority-plurality wins since Bernie left. Several election cycles could have gone to a single coalition Democrat/Republican candidate; Clavelle’s comeback in ’95 and Kiss’ last win are 2 examples that come to mind. One big reason Burlington is a “Progressive” town is their skill at splitting the opposition. Could Kiss still win another election, now? Well, if Kurt Wright AND Ed Adrian run against him, he just might–with or without IRV!
So because I believe in one person, one vote and decided not to vote for other candidates by strategically ranking them you have concluded that I chose not to engage? I don’t know what to say to that other than it’s clear the Progs are going to take the “blame the voter” route on this.It’s my fault my vote was not counted because I chose not to play the IRV game. That says a lot about politics right there. I was under the impression we had a democracy where every vote was counted.Throwing 7.5% of the ballots out of the equation to come up with false majority makes me wonder why I even voted.Oh, wait a second, I didn’t vote. It was never counted because I made a bad choice.Stupid me.
Owen-Sorry you felt disenfranchised. Of course…if you had simply voted for either Bob or Kurt as your second, third or fourth choice then your vote would have been counted. That was up to you.As for 606 fewer votes in the final run-off…that means a far far higher rate of participation (percentage wise) than just about any ward council run-off race in recent memory (over 93% of voters had a vote/say in the final tally). So the results actually show more participation…not less. Most would say that is more enfranchisement…not less. It is up to the individual voter to decide…you decided not to engage. Your choice.To Mark…fair point. Lets discuss a run-off vs. instant run-off. But that is not the question on the ballot. It is whether we return to a 40% victory threshold or stay at 50% (through IRV). If you can get Kurt and other Republicans to stay on as part of the coalition looking for a 50% threshold more power to you. I imagine you would lose most of them. I would not say the same about others in the coalition. But the reality is the majority of folks against IRV are sore losers who supported Kurt Wright. I bet most signatures are from wards 4 and 7 where the R’s are the strongest and where they know the only hope of winning in the future is to return to 40%.Up to someone else to actually look through the 1600 signatures and compare addresses…but I am willing to bet that wards 4 and 7 have a disproportionate number of signatures. Hmmmm why would die hard Republicans want to return to 40%?
IRV=Voter DisenfranchisementOn Tuesday, March 3rd 2009, I voted for Mayor but my vote didn’t count and neither did 605 other votes. This is called voter disenfranchisement. So how did this happen? It all started with a voting system called IRV (Instant Runoff Voting) where voters ranked their candidates in order of preference on the ballot.Unfortunately, under this system, if you chose not to rank your candidates or you chose only one candidate (who happened not to make the final runoff) your vote was not counted.The final runoff between Kiss and Wright was decided by 8,374 votes, not the total 8,980 votes cast for Mayor. Kiss won by 4,313 votes to Wright’s 4,061 votes. Now add their two numbers together and you get 8,374, which leaves 606 ballots in an exhausted pile that’s not counted under IRV rules.I would have liked to have voted in an election between Kiss and Wright as the only two candidates. I did not know or would have guessed that the final runoff would be between those two candidates. This is where IRV fails.I was disenfranchised from that election because I did not want to rank candidates or strategize over the possible outcome. I just wanted to vote for one candidate and that’s it. If it was a traditional election there would have been another separate runoff at a later date where I could have heard more from Kiss and Wright and then had the opportunity to cast a more informed vote, and one that would have counted.OWEN MULLIGANFormer Ward 6 Election Clerk
engaging discussion…. in a perfect world no one believes in UFO’s, creationism, laser beams destroyed the WTC, obama wasn’t born in america… and EVERYONE understands IRV the way all informed citizens in this discussion do. but face it folks, it just ain’t going to be so. so regardless of cost (and it’s not really that much) and to maintain trust in our elections, let’s mandate 2 person runoff elections if no one gets at least 40%. regarding our multiparty “system,” you’ll notice that in city council races it’s basically 2 parties- just different parties depending on wards. multi party governments usually form as a result of the parliamentary system. Unfortunately that’s not what we have at any level in the US. it’s always left/center vs right/center regardless of what the labels are.
“Again…no system is perfect. I am not trying to make IRV out to be perfect. But it is better than the alternatives.”No! No matter how many times you say it, it is NOT better than what existed before. It isn’t. We know all the arguments, and we disagree. The fact that you’ve convinced yourself that it is better, just doesn’t make it so for the rest of us. To the rest of us, your new house isn’t better than your old one. But since you’ve invested in the new one, you have to believe that it’s better. I’m happy for you that you’ve successfully convinced yourself. Congratulations. But the rest of us don’t have to agree with you that your new one’s better. Stop trying so hard.
What is “not to get about it” is that the only real contested race was when the seat was open. Otherwise folks figured it was the incumbent or the Republican and that others who could be viable should not run or else it might elect (god forbid) the Republican.This last race we saw four active and viable candidates. Folks felt comfortable putting everything they had behind Dan and he ran a great campaign. Without IRV he certainly would have had strong supporters, but the media and political world would have said he could not go anywhere because voters would have been too nervous to support him because of spoiler blah blah blah.Andy too would never have gotten the number of first place votes under the old system because those who are P/D or D/P would have coalesced (sp?) around Bob as the fear of Kurt would have been discussed far more in the media and political circles. These are the realities of the old system.When was the last time there were 4 viable candidates in a race? Can anyone tell me that?Also…why is it so great to have more time for campaigning and “new ideas”? Isn’t it the job of candidates to make all their pitches for the general election? Who is holding something back for the potential run-off? As for being locked into ones first choice…I am afraid I miss the logic of the presented problem? Why would one’s first choice change (unless there was some grand revelation…again…back to the earlier point that everything should come out pro and con for the general election)? Gee…I really wanted Kurt to win…but now…I guess I really like Bob more? Come on.The idea that it is complicated is being stirred by those that don’t like it. Voting for your first choice does not hurt your first choice. Voting for your second choice second does not hurt that candidate either (of course…if you are stuck on condorcet as Haik is then it makes a difference…but again…to apply one form of tabulation to a different form of election is a bit off base since folks might have voted differently had the convoluted condorcet system been explained as the system that was going to be applied. Which…is why condorcet is not used. 1) it is too complicated and 2) it lends itself to far more manipulation as people can change the outcome with their second and third place votes if cast strategically. Something that is not so for IRV).Again…no system is perfect. I am not trying to make IRV out to be perfect. But it is better than the alternatives. Please remember…repealing IRV does not return us to a majority winner or a run-off, it returns us to a 40% winner (plurality) or run-off threshold. What sense is there to that? I know that folks have indicated that some do not know the difference between plurality and majority. Well, if nothing else…a lot more know now than used to.The same could be said for how the system works in DC. Far more people understand cloture (60 votes) in the Senate than used to. I think that is a good thing (understanding it…not necessarily that it is the system).All of this discussion is good for democracy, for voters and hopefully for further lively debate.Sorry I do not get all of my spelling right…I actually spend little time on this as there is far too much to do in a day, so I type fast and make a few errors. If attacking my spelling is the best you can do, then I am fine with that : )
@ Bradley:The only time in recent memory that people have claimed that the election of the Mayor did not reflect the general will of the electorate was the election of Kiss in 2009 under the IRV system.The old system worked. It worked fine. It worked great. There weren’t any problems. Dems, Republicans, and Progs all got elected to the Mayor’s office and Citry Council under the old system.What don’t you get about that?