Dean Corren: Applauding how we Vermonters elect our governor

Editor’s note: This commentary is by Dean Corren, of Burlington, who is a former four-term Vermont representative, outreach director for then-Congressman Bernie Sanders, and the 2014 Progressive and Democratic candidate for Vermont lieutenant governor.

[O]ur Constitution requires that our governor (and don’t forget the lieutenant governor and treasurer, too) be elected by a majority, and if the voters fail to supply one, the Legislature, as our representatives, should provide one. The drafters of the Vermont (and Pennsylvania) state constitutions weren’t stupid. They believed, as most of us say we do, in majority rule.

In the 18th century, with dirt roads and horse-drawn carriages, that approach was a fine solution. Today we can do better, but we don’t need to throw out our principles in the process.

Because the Constitution empowers them, legislators should vote for the candidate they prefer, however they decide that. There are various legitimate approaches. They can choose based on their personal preferences, or those otherwise expressed by their district. The only thing they should not do, because it directly undermines the Constitution, would be to simply vote for the candidate who got the most votes in the general election. The Constitution has already rejected that outcome as inadequate.

Much of the discussion makes the Constitution’s provision for the legislative vote seem mysterious and bizarre. Who are they to decide? Well, who elects the Legislature? We just did. Yes, the public should elect the governor, but a majority of the voters, and, in an admittedly indirect way, that’s what we just did.

Many commentators and legislators treat this responsibility with dread rather than gusto.

The predictable knee-jerk reaction to amend the Constitution to allow election by a minority has erupted, especially since this is a year in which constitutional amendments can begin. Coverage of the issue usually starts from the premise that our Constitution is flawed, and at best, quaintly anachronistic. Even the good-government group VPIRG has it all wrong: a separate runoff election in December would have the governor decided by only a majority of a very small minority — a most undemocratic result, and one most easily manipulated by big money. If you think turnout was low this November, just wait until we have a December runoff.

One of the fascinating aspects of this year’s legislative vote is how the candidates and parties publicly kept hands-off. (They actually said that in this vote legislators needed to make their own decisions. Great, although it leads to the question: what do they normally expect?)

Sure, a Republican group ran some ads for Scott Milne, but even that was remarkably muted compared to what the post-“Americans United” Supreme Court decision spend-fest would be for an additional runoff election.

And the complaint about the use of a secret ballot (required by the Constitution) is overblown. It’s the polite way to elect people. If you want to know how your reps and senators voted, just ask. If they demur, in less than two years you are free to vote for someone else.

As far as the bottom line: Since the majority of the state and its Legislature is to varying degrees on the “left,” I expected Peter Shumlin to prevail easily in this vote. At this stage, unlike in the general election, the 180 legislators realized they must make a decision, and didn’t have the luxury of sending vague anonymous messages, even if they have a bone to pick with him on one or more issues. (Shumlin got 110 out of 179 votes, or 61 percent.)

Unsurprisingly, after over two centuries, there is indeed a better way. If legislators are so unhappy with their role, they should consider some form of instant-runoff voting. This fairest, simplest, fastest, most democratic way to determine a majority from everyone voting in the general election simply hadn’t been invented yet in 1793, and the technology to practically carry it out didn’t exist until more recently.

The principle of majority rule hasn’t changed since our thankfully tough-to-amend Constitution was drafted, and it doesn’t need to.