Vermont's
Statewide Election Method Needs Reform
by Marge Gaskins, President, League
of Women Voters of Vermont
With
at least three viable candidates in both the governor and lieutenant
governor races, there could be no winners in this November’s
elections. Vermont’s
constitution requires a candidate to get a majority (over 50%) of
the votes, to win these offices. If no candidate receives a
popular majority, the general assembly picks a winner in January.
The League of Women Voters of Vermont is part of a coalition seeking
to reform our election system so that a majority of voters can
directly elect all statewide offices.
To tackle such
reform, it is necessary to examine a confusion that is common among
voters, politicians and the press about the meaning of “winner.” Many people assume the
following terms mean the same thing.
-
Majority
Rule: “the candidate preferred by the majority of voters
should win.”
-
Top Vote-Getter Rule:
“the candidate with the most votes should
win.”
In fact these rules
can be in direct conflict under Vermont’s current election
method.
Imagine a situation
where an unpopular candidate, who can only muster 35% support, loses
to an opponent's 65%. Should our voting system allow that 35%
candidate with such narrow support to be declared the winner?
No. But under a "top vote-getter" rule that can happen.
If one or two additional candidates run against this unpopular
candidate, the 65% majority of voters may end up dividing among the
opponents, allowing the candidate who can only get 35% support to
end up with more votes than any other single candidate. Under "majority rule,"
some sort of runoff procedure would be used to allow the majority to
prevail over the unpopular candidate. However, under the
simplistic "top vote-getter" rule, the 35% of voters, who prefer the
unpopular candidate would defeat the 65% majority, merely because
more candidates ran.
Accustomed to two-way
races, many people make the false assumption that the top
vote-getter is necessarily the rightful winner. Some Vermont newspapers even
survey legislators about the prospect of the governor’s race being
thrown to the legislature, asking whether they will vote for the
candidate who “wins” their district, who “wins” statewide, or for
the candidate they think is best. The mistaken assumption that
the plurality leader is the “winner” (whether in a district or
statewide) flies in the face of the principle of majority rule.
The best way to
assure election of state officers by a majority of voters is by
adopting instant runoff voting (IRV), as San Francisco did
recently. Instant
runoff voting allows voters to rank candidates in order of
preference. Thus a
runoff count can be conducted to determine which candidate is
actually preferred by a majority of voters, without the cost, lower
turnout, or hassle of a separate runoff election, or giving that
decision to the legislature.
By narrowing the field to two final candidates, IRV assures
that the candidate with the most votes at the end of the count will
also have a majority of the vote – thus satisfying both rules.
In contrast, a
simplistic “top vote-getter” constitutional amendment would lock in
a “spoiler” dynamic, where a vote for your favorite candidate may
actually help elect a candidate you like the least. The framers of Vermont’s
constitution had a good reason for insisting on majority rule. When there are more than two
candidates, the plurality leader could have narrow support. To avoid a logistically
impractical delayed runoff, they settled on an imperfect method of
resolving an election when there was no majority winner – letting
the legislature choose. That imperfection can now be remedied with
IRV, which was invented in New England around 1870.
The League of Women
Voters led an effort that put a question on 56 town meetings last
March, about whether the legislature should adopt instant runoff
voting to allow the majority of voters to elect statewide
offices. The
referendum passed in 95% of the towns with overwhelming
margins. IRV can be
adopted with or without a constitutional amendment, and the next
legislature should make it a top
priority. |