An effort to bring ranked-choice voting back to Burlington has missed a key deadline, all but ensuring the issue won’t be on the March ballot.
Citing a scheduling conflict at the end of Monday’s Charter Change Committee meeting, City Councilor Joan Shannon (D-South District) moved to adjourn before the three-member panel could take up the measure. Councilor Franklin Paulino (D-North District) supported the motion, while Councilor Max Tracy (P-Ward 2), the committee chair, did not.
“It’s just frustrating that we weren’t even able to start the conversation,” Tracy said, adding, “I was willing to stay and continue the conversation. I was hoping we’d be able to get something out, but that did not happen.”
The full council needs to consider all charter changes for the Town Meeting Day 2020 ballot by December 16. Without another committee meeting before then, the ranked-choice voting proposal will likely miss the deadline, Tracy said. He hopes to get the item on the November ballot instead.
On Monday, the committee met for more than 90 minutes and did vote to send three charter change items to the full council. The first would allow noncitizens to vote in local elections. Another would add a Winooski representative — and an additional Burlington resident — to the city’s Airport Commission. A third would allow local questions to be printed on a state general election ballot.
A group of Progressive councilors only introduced the ranked-choice voting proposal earlier this month. Burlington used ranked-choice voting, also known as instant runoff voting, from 2005 to 2010. Voters rank candidates in order of preference, and if their first choice is eliminated, their vote is reassigned to their second choice. The process continues until one candidate earns 50 percent or more of the vote. The current voting system only requires a 40 percent majority to win.
The city council voted 9-3 on December 2 to send the measure to the charter change subcommittee for review. Shannon was one of the three no votes. At that meeting, she told her colleagues that she supports ranked-choice but felt the charter committee would need more time to study it or “other election methods.” Constituents had told her that ranked choice was too complicated, Shannon said then.
On Tuesday, Shannon said that she told everyone about the hard-stop time when the meeting was scheduled last week. She and Paulino had plans to join Democratic lawmakers at an event on Monday night “that was planned way in advance,” Shannon said.
Regardless, according to Paulino, the committee needed much more time to fully vet the ranked-choice voting proposal. Shannon agreed.
“My intention wasn’t to limit discussion but rather to expand it,” she said, adding, “When you get into something, oftentimes you find out it’s a little more complicated than you thought.”
Councilor Jack Hanson (P-East District), who spearheaded the proposal and attended Monday’s meeting, was disappointed that Shannon “wasn’t willing to make the time” to discuss ranked-choice voting.
“They’re denying people from hearing where they stand on this issue. It’s a cop-out,” Hanson said. “It’s disrespectful to all the folks who really care about this issue and who took the time out of their busy lives to engage on this.”
But Shannon said that Hanson could have introduced the concept months ago. “He could have put this on our agenda in June. His lack of planning should not become our emergency,” she said.
Hanson hopes the committee revives the discussion at its next meeting.
“I really hope they don’t continue to delay on this,” he said. “I hope they genuinely take up the issue and make a decision.”
Related Stories
Got something to say?
Send a letter to the editor and we'll publish your feedback in print!
Let’s see . . .
On Dec. 2 a novice city councilor introduces a bombshell proposal for changing how Burlington elects its mayor. Now he’s all hissy that the Charter Change Committee and the City Council won’t drop everything else they’re doing so they can vet this proposal and get it back to the Council for a final vote by Dec. 16?
2 weeks for all involved to consider and vote on a mega-important issue fundamentally affecting Burlington’s democracy?
Is this kid serious?
Don’t you just love how the Progressives are all about more and more and more process when it’s someone else’s idea, but when they raise ranked choice voting less than 4 months before the election and demand action on it immediately, all that process is “frustrating.” If there is only one scheduled committee meeting on your proposal between its announcement and the required deadline, you’ve announced it too late.
Yo Sumptions,
Now it sounds like You are the one having a hissy fit. I trust Councilor Tracy.
PS – isn’t important a good word? What changes an issue to “mega-important”? Enthusiasm?
(It doesn’t matter – it’s not an issue that’s mega-important.)
Hanson said. “It’s disrespectful to all the folks who really care about this issue and who took the time out of their busy lives to engage on this.
What is disrespectful is trying to sneak this measure in at the last minute. Jack you played your hand and lost. Let it be a lesson!
Dedicated Miro-bot and GOP councilor Shannon showed her colors : yellow. The last thing the Neo-liberals in City Hall want is anything that will threaten Miro’s re-election chances. He would’ve most likely lost the last election had there been IRV.
Max Tracy should not be surprised by Shannon’s behavior, this is how these folks roll. She will defend Miro the same way corrupt , obese AG Bill Barr defends Trump.
It Sounds as if Hanson is a piss poor planner.
And that being the case, and If I was a constituent, I would have a few words with my councilor. But hey, he’s a kid, and unfortunately for progressives, a kid who lacks organizational skills.
I am glad to proclaim that I don’t live in Burlington. With that being said, from my limited understanding of Burlingtons politics, I have 2 words to explain my opposition to ranked voting. Bob Kiss.
Weird. Democrats can impeach a president in less time than it takes to reconsider a proposal that is supported by many Burlingtonians. So Councilor Shannon and her minions support mayoral victory for a candidate receiving only 40% of the vote? Unfortunate. I thought majority rules. Dems appear to disagree with that “radical” idea.
If you like paying big taxes, keep voting for these clowns.
Checked your property tax lately?
Compare it to a year ago. Five years ago. Ten years. Take your pick.
The “charter” committee ought to discuss why Burlingtonians are victims of rising taxes and increasing crime.
And, oh, why no one shops downtown.
Otherwise, it’s all about process that has absolutely no connection to daily life in the nation’s socialist urban capital.
The Democrat’s Event of the evening was more important than the business before the committee. I think that tells you all you need to know about the Democrats of Burlington.
Yo Ted – people DO shop downtown.
Sorry your taxes are high – haven’t compared them to taxes everywhere else, so I wouldn’t know.
I DO know we shouldn’t spend them on a $200,000 toilet for City Hall Park! (you’ve heard about it?)
“The nation’s socialist urban capital”? What have you been reading?
“The Democrat’s Event of the evening was more important than the business before the committee. I think that tells you all you need to know about the Democrats of Burlington.”
What????
Oh, yes, I’m sure that after sitting through 90 minutes of Charter Change Committee, Tracy would have skipped a previously scheduled Prog party event and stuck around to discuss a last-minute charter change proposal that the Dems desperately wanted to rush through.
Right.
They should just have normal election voting where the majority wins!
Hi Gigrape,
[I’ll bet anything some folks have already pressed “dislike”]
We do start with the majority voting procedure – the change is for when no one gets over 50%, I believe.
Do you mean the majority or whoever gets the most votes?
How is 40% a “majority?” Just asking.