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If IRV is repealed, then the next election for mayor will revert to the old system: A simple plurality (40 percent) wins the day.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!
If I remember correctly, people have been talking about Condorcet for well over a year in local blogs. Certainly enough time to have circulated their own petition.
Support the Repeal and stay updated:http://repealirv.blogspot.com/
The other thing I forgot to mention is that, in this go for broke referendum, one side or the other is going to lose. The side that loses, whether they be the pro-IRV or anti-IRV people, are gonna wish we had Condorcet.And the side that wins could have their *legitimate* concerns accommodated with Condorcet. The pro-IRV people could accommodate their concern to not elect the minority candidate because the majority splits their vote between two others. The anti-IRV people could accommodate their concern to not elect their least favorite candidate when the support their most favorite candidate.Isn’t this false dichotomy (IRV vs. plurality) sad? If people were smart and knew how to listen and not just foolishly cheer their ill-informed position, we would all be better off. And it would be neither IRV or the old 40%+ plurality (or delayed runoff if no one gets 40%). It’s really stupid, but with turkeys like W or Sarah Palin or Dan Quayle running for high office (and sometimes attaining it), polarized politics can be very stupid.
It’s amazing how a sensible third way is utterly ignored in this debate despite efforts to educate people in Burlington. There is another option that is better than IRV *or* the 40% plurality (or delayed runoff if no one gets 40%). It’s called the Condorcet method (named after a French mathematician and political philosopher from 200 years ago), it uses the same ranked-order ballot that IRV uses and, if there is a Condorcet winner, that person beat *every* other candidate in a runoff (which is what the IRV final round is) with just the Condorcet winner and that other candidate.The reason the 2009 mayoral election screwed up was that Andy Montroll was that Condorcet winner, Andy would have beaten *any* other candidate (including Bob Kiss) in the final round if Andy was in the final round. That is a fact of public record. The problem is, with IRV’s kabuki dance of candidate elimination and transferred votes, Andy having fewer *first* choice votes than either Bob or Kurt Wright, did not make it into the final round. But if he *had* gotten into the final round, he would have beaten either Kiss or Wright (or Dan Smith).The problem for Democrats is that even though they had the most popular candidate (Andy had voter preference than either Bob or Kurt or Dan), their candidate did not win. That causes the same kind of thwarted voter resentment that the 2000 Prez election caused by electing the candidate with minority support.The problem with the Republicans is that by remaining loyal to their first choice (Wright), they actually helped elect the candidate that they *least* supported, the Prog candidate. This is because if they had recognized and accepted that their favorite candidate would not win and ranked their compromise candidate (Montroll) above their favorite (Wright), their less disliked candidate would get into the final round and beat their most disliked candidate. That causes voter regret and if IRV survives this referendum, Republicans have to think twice about supporting their favorite and may choose to vote strategically for the Dem just to keep the Prog candidate from winning in IRV.Generally requiring voters to vote strategically is a bad thing, we want voters to vote sincerely for the candidate they like the best without worrying that their sincere vote will cause more harm to their political goals than an insincere compromise vote. Avoiding strategic voting was one reason that IRV was adopted in the first place, and it is clear it failed that purpose in Burlington in 2009, at least from the *legitimate* Republican POV.It is not a legitimate argument for Republicans to reject IRV because it didn’t elect their guy, Kurt Wright. Wright should not have been elected against the wishes of the majority of Burlington voters. But Bob Kiss should not have been elected when nearly 600 more voters marked their ballots that they preferred Andy Montroll over Kiss. And voting for Kurt Wright as your first choice should not have helped elect Bob Kiss and that is precisely what happened last March.But IRV is better than the stupid plurality winner election (known as “First Past the Pole”). The ranked-order ballot in necessary to know how voters would vote if they couldn’t get their first pick. But the way that IRV tabulates the vote, resolves that information, and chooses the winner is messed up and Condorcet would fix that.It’s really remarkable that simple solutions (without the historical tradition that the better known methods have) that solve the legitimate concerns of both the majority and minority are passed over and we have to choose between two bad methods, even if one method is badder than the other.
Floating an opinion and calling it “logic” that other people are too stupid to understand isn’t even the funniest part. It’s that he completely disagreed with himself to support the opinion. Hi-larious!
OF COURSE BOB WOULD HAVE WON. Come on! Everybody knows that, silly. He’s the Prog so he would have won. Duh. Frankly, I don’t even know why we bother with elections anyway. They’re just a waste of time and money. Especially runoffs! Sheesh! Progs are ENTITLED to hold the mayorship, ergo, Bob would have won. Of course nothing could POSSIBLY have changed the voters minds between the primary and runoff elections!The Great Prog has spoken!
“The reality is that far far fewer voters vote in a run-off.” – Zuckerman, 12/31/09″In that run-off, if the same people came out to vote…Bob would have won….this is just too logical for ‘jimmy'” – “Zuckerman,” 1/4/10So Bad Bob would have won in a runoff if everyone came back out, but… not everyone would have come out, so… he would have won anyway? You’re right, that’s way too “logical” for me, “David.” I guess you could call that Progressive logic – or that of a party-line zealot who doesn’t think before he hits Post.BTW, either post your birth certificate to prove you’re not pulling a Don Draper or knock it off with the “full legal name or you’re automatically wrong” nonsense. Most of the world got over that years ago.
“In that run-off, if the same people came out to vote…Bob would have won…it just would have taken 4 more weeks and more money”David, how on earth can you come to the conclusion that under a traditional runoff Bob would have won?1st of all, the Burlington Telecom issue would have had more time to surface and God knows what else may have happened. A lot can happen in 4 weeks. People change their minds.Let’s at least be realistic here.If we had a traditional runoff it could have gone either way.
“I am done with this thread and I imagine most readers are probably done with it as well.”Thank goodness. Now that you’ve treated us to 7 or 8 LENGTHY lectures that basically tell us that you are superior to us.
Dale-I think many people in many wards “care about democracy”. That was not the point. The point (that was not challenged) was that more signatures probably came from those wards because more people there are upset that the result is not what they wanted. Of course, the result had nothing to do with the voting system. Since neither Kurt nor Bob got 40% in the first round there would have been a run-off under the old system (except that many who voted for Andy or Dan would probably have voted for either Bob or Kurt (not necessarily in that order since they would have been perceived as the front runners.) In that run-off, if the same people came out to vote…Bob would have won…it just would have taken 4 more weeks and more money (for campaigns and for logistics of running an election etc.) But then again…this is just too logical for “jimmy” and “webber” (thank you Dale for at least having the courage to put your full name behind your words).And Dale- As for Hinesburg, I will give you the decency to respond. I have no idea what the people of Hinesburg want at this point. I do not plan to move there and just jump in with my answers etc. Since I do not even live there it would be a bit presumptuous (sp?) to speak for them. I agree with Deb that the discussion should not be about Kurt or Bob or the recent candidates. But it does come to that because it is the nature of the beast. While I have used the examples of the recent election, I have generally tried to point out how the system worked (logistically) to include more voters in the run-off and to produce a quicker result so that the elected folks can get down to planning more quickly. It also saves money and allows for more candidates to be viable. It gives those that are elected and those that are not a greater understanding of the preferences of the voters since folks can vote their first choice without being encumbered by the “spoiler” conundrum. It is not hard to understand and there is far less downside to voting ones choices in the order that one actually believes in (compared with simple plurality.)The system did not elect Bob Kiss, the voters did. Whether one agrees with the will of the majority is a different question than whether the system worked or not. I am sure there will be a time when IRV elects someone I do not prefer. So be it. It will allow for all of the points above.Go ahead and attack the points again. I am done with this thread and I imagine most readers are probably done with it as well. We will all present our positions in the coming weeks and there will be a vote in March. We are all truly guessing (maybe educated, but still guessing) at the outcome until it actually happens. Obviously the majority thought it was a good idea 7 and 8 years ago. We will see whether the majority still does.Thanks for the discussion.