Everything the IBEW says is true. And yet…like the grasshopper, it’s been very clear for quite a while that the life of VY will, like the grasshopper’s summer, come to an end at some point. There are plenty of lessons to learn from the ants, who look ahead and plan for the future, rather than relying on things to continue forever as they are now.

Let gifts, their donors, their recipients, and their purposes be fully explained and considered. Otherwise, perhaps they are not truly \gifts\.

Under the old system, it would have gone to runoff with Wright and Kiss. If turnout was comparable to Election Day (say, about 93%, the portion of voters who expressed a preference between Wright and Kiss), then the outcome of the runoff would be no different. Kiss would have won.

But, as we know, the turnout is reduced an additional 45% to 50%. Then, you’re right, we do not know how it would have turned out, except we know it would be between Wright and Kiss. From what we know from the actual ballots marked by the Burlington voters (which is the information you want suppressed with the “traditional” ballot), Wright was preferred less than ether Kiss or Montroll (by 252 or 930 votes, respectively).

The “process” your side has brought us back to, risks electing the third most preferred candidate and, if had been in use in 2009, would have no hope in electing the candidate that voters prefer over any other candidate when they are asked to choose between the two.

If a majority of voters agree that Candidate A is a better choice than Candidate B, it’s important to me that Candidate B is not elected. For some reason it’s not important to you (at least not in multi-candidate elections). That is the most fundamental difference between our approaches to the question of how to elect someone in a multi-candidate election.

You said “A straightforward system that provides that the candidate who receives the most votes wins is common-place, long-standing, and perfectly acceptable.”

Such a system is not acceptable to me and a lot of other people. There is nothing acceptable about someone winning when 59.9% of people voted against him or her.

And BTW, if I were you, I would not hang my hat on the idea that things that are “commonplace” and “longstanding” are necessarily acceptable. While tradition is important, this country would be very different if we hadn’t recognized the injustices of many commonplace and longstanding practices.

If you had been seeking higher office in the 1960’s, would you have opposed one person one vote in VT because the old system was commonplace and longstanding?

How about the right to vote for Blacks and Women?

To be clear, I’m not suggesting you don’t support the constitutional changes that have been made; only that a reliance on tradition can be a very dangerous thing.

I appreciate your detailed response.

We obviously will need to agree to disagree on some of these issues, such as my believe that the term “spoiler” isn’t calling someone a name, but rather commenting on the fact that with the 40% system approved in Burlington last week or the plurality system used for the state’s federal elections, the majority of those choosing to participate can have their choice trumped due to dividing their vote.

There is one very specific concern I’ve raised that I wanted to flag. There is a new federal law requiring elections to be at least 45 days apart to avoid discriminating against military voters overseas. In the 40% system approved in Burlington for mayor and already used for city council races, the longest number of days allowed between elections is 27 and could be as short as 13 days. In the 2009 city council runoff that you defend in Burlington (the one where turnout dropped nearly in half, as opposed to the IRV election for mayor where turnout in the final round of counting was only slightly down from the first round), there were overseas voters in the first round, but none who cast a vote in the runoff. I hope you look to solutions to ensure their votes count — just because Burlington’s elections aren’t covered by the federal law protecting the rights of military voters shouldn’t mean that that a solution shouldn’t be pursued.

Thanks for engaging. Again, we clearly don’t see eye to eye on this, but appreciate the frank exchange.

Nowhere do I say that Kurt Wright “should” have won. That’s not for me to decide. In fact, I cite the example of Andy Montroll before Kurt Wright in my piece. My problem is with the process, not with the outcome. We’ll never know if the outcome would have been different under the prior, traditional system.

Let me be precise with my responses so there is no misunderstanding.

1) When one speaks to a crowd, the nature of the audience and the goal of the presentation necessarily modify the tone and substance of the presentation. That is not a question of being “inauthentic,” and the use of that term by IRV supporters is a red herring. Instead, it’s a mattter of effective, goal-oriented public speaking. The unavoidable fact is that political campaigns under IRV smooth over disagreements and avoid a tough exploration of the issues because all candidates have the secondary goal of also getting second-choice votes from supporters of the other candidates. Thus, someone seeking the second-choice votes of Kiss supporters will not ask as tough questions about Burlington Telecom and other issues as would be the case in a traditional campaign.

2) Voter turnout is a separate issue. The Secretary of State, and all public officials, must work to encourage as many voters as possible to participate. For instance, I am an elected memeber of the Williston Selectboard. In Williston, we actively engaged voters on the questions of a village roundabout and new ambulance service, with the result being a relatively high turnout for Australian ballot voting on Town Meeting Day. Engaging and respecting voters through transparency and a desire to actually listen will encourage greater voter participation. Ultimately, though, one can bring a horse to water, but can’t make him drink. IRV is in no way a magic solution to that problem.

3) What’s wrong with the so-called “spoiler” dynamic? That simply involves labels assigned by one group of supporters to another candidate. Candidates run, and candidates either win or lose. If someone wants to label a third-place finisher like Ross Perot or Anthony Pollina a “spoiler,” that is not a problem with the system. That is a matter of campaign dynamics and “name calling.”

4) I do not assign the same talismanic power to a “majority” as you do in a multi-candidate race. Let’s say there are 10,000 registered voters. If a candidate receives 40% of the vote when there is 60% turnout (2,400 votes), is that person somehow less “legitimate” than someone who receives 50% of the vote when there is 40% turnout (2,000 votes)? A straightforward system that provides that the candidate who receives the most votes wins is common-place, long-standing, and perfectly acceptable.

5) I didn’t say that was my preference. I was simply observing that the Vermont Constitution provides the governor and lieutenant governor races go to the General Assembly absent a majority winner. Unless there is a constitutional amendment, that system will remain in place as it has for over two centuries.

In the end, voting can be a simple process: “yea” or “nea.” Supporters of IRV have to provide lengthy explanations as to why IRV is really simple and fair. By having to explain it in such length, their arguments prove the point of those who do not support IRV.

1) There is nothing to stop robust debate in an instant runoff voting election. I would hope candidates would be authentic and present their real views no matter what the system. It’s a serious charge to suggest that Kurt Wright and Andy Montroll were inauthentic in 2009.

2) Do you think he Burlington city council runoff in 2009 was a success in 2009 when voter turnout dropped nearly in half and no military voter overseas was able to cast a vote in the runoff (even though some did in the first round)?

3) I would suggest you look again at the math of a 50% threshold vs. a 40% victory threshold. When it is 40%, the presence of a third candidate immediately introduces the “spoiler” dynamic – meaning majority rule can be thwarted. Again, consider a ballot question where one option with 48% could defeat two similar options that together make up 52%. Wouldn’t you see such a structure for a ballot choice as unfair?

4) The fact that Bill Clinton and others have won elections with less than 50% is unimportant to me. Anyone able to get a substantial share of the vote has a reasonable chance to be an effective leader/representative. But that doesn’t change the fact that we should seek to protect majority rule. As it happens, I suspect Bill Clinton would have won a majority with IRV against his top opponents in 1992 and 1996. I suspect Jim Douglas would have won a majority in the 2002 governor’s race. But it’s better to know, then to hope.

5) I’m surprised to say that you’d prefer that the legislature pick the governor and other statewide constitutional offices when there is no majority winner than to find ways to keep that power with the voters. When more than 50 Vermont town meetings weighed in on that question in March 2002, they overwhelmingly backed upholding majority winners with IRV over just turning it over to the legislature.

Annexation does seem preferable to secession.

But, as you say, why would Canada want us?

If you’d like to be on my email and snailmail lists, send your email and snailmail addresses to my email address above.

Good point about Quebec versus Vermont syrup. You think this is a deal breaker?

If you’d like to be on my email and snailmail lists, send your email and snailmail addresses to my email address above.

I too never watch sports, but I got totally involved in hockey this Olympics, AND curling.

If you’d like to be on my email and snailmail lists, send your email and snailmail addresses to my email address above.

If you’d like to be on my email and snailmail lists, send your email and snailmail addresses to my email address above.

Rob, welcome to Vermont. If Kathy Dopp (or Warren Smith) is gonna drop into our internal family spat, you should be involved too. I noticed you didn’t ask *me* why I understand that the 2009 mayoral election failed. And, from our discussions over at your turf last year, you should know why. Rob, I *totally* support and identify with the goals you seek in election reform. And, in contexts where there are 3 major parties (or more) and credible Independent candidates, we need something else than the “traditional” ballot and Plurality rule to maintain a fertile environment for such. The fact that Vermont *does* have a credible Prog party is an asset for the state.

This alternate to the “traditional” ballot is the ranked ballot (I can still shoot down Warren Smith’s idea that Score Voting will solve all our problems), but the IRV method of tabulating those ranked ballots is so clearly flawed, Rob, that I just don’t understand why you’re still in denial about that. Especially after these repudiations in VT WA and NC. It may not be long that you’ll see repeat performances in MA, MN and maybe even SF.

Coupling the Ranked Ballot with the IRV tabulation method was a big mistake from the very beginning, Rob. And it continues to be a mistake. I think you guys at FairVote would be wise to look seriously at the product you’re selling instead of just how you can market it.

But Chris, your arguments are all based on subjective opinions with no evidence (like IRV discourages debate) and some downright falsehoods. The ranked ballot does *not* violate any notion of “One person, One vote”, in fact, making people return to the polls for a delayed runoff is what is truly “One person, Two votes”. And it’s not just about inconvenience (but does not exclude it). What you mendacious Republicans want is, after your candidate loses, you want another whack at it. You want to be able to pour in another truckload of money into the Runoff election and pull “victory” out of the jaws of defeat 3 weeks after Election Day. If your side was honest, you would label yourselves as “One person, Two votes” or advocates of Minority Rule, because that is what you are.

As for the less-than-50% is illegitimate argument: The mayor of Rutland was elected with a plurality less than what Kurt Wright received after the first round of first-choice votes. Former President Clinton never received 50% of the vote, nor did Abraham Lincoln. There is nothing fundamentally unfair about allowing plurality winners in multi-candidate races, and it happens all the time across the country. However, if a town wishes to establish some threshold which requires a run-off if it is not surpassed — perhaps 40% or 50% — then so be it. As for the state, my commentary notes that currently there is no requirement for a run-off in statewide elections, with the governor and lieutenant governor races being sent to the legislature absent a majority winner.

I agree that the vote in Burlington, with a 4% spread, 52% is not a gigantic smackdown against IRV. I do believe that it signifies a sea change, though, when you consider that the push against IRV came from a grassroots group up against mostly outside money. Also, some voters became disillusioned with IRV.

See interview with Burlington Voters before the repeal:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q1hogdzeRKQ

See Burlington Voters speak out about Instant Runoff Voting after voting to Repeal it on March 2, 2010.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mUDw_nVzgM4

Now the vote in Pierce County Washington last November,
really was a referendum against IRV/RCV. That was a stunning defeat:

Instant runoff voting was rejected by an overwhelming majority of Pierce County Washington Voters. 44,145 of 64,106 voters said yes to ditching instant runoff voting, also called ranked choice voting. That is 71.76% for eliminating IRV and 28.24% who wanted to keep IRV.

Proposed Charter Amendment No. 3 (approved repealing IRV)
APPROVED 44,145 71.76%
REJECTED 17,372 28.24%
Over Votes 34
Under Votes 2,555

Here’s the Charter Amendment description:

Ballot Measures and Validation Requirements Pierce County (253) 798‐7777 Ordinance 2009‐1, Charter Amendment No. 3, if approved,would eliminate Instant Runoff Voting, also known as Ranked Choice Voting (RCV) and restore the primary and general election for County Elected Offices in accordance with State Election Law. Simple Majority