INTRODUCTION

After taking considerable testimony on the instant runoff voting (IRV) bill, H.665, last year, the House Committee on Local Government sponsored House Resolution 37, which was adopted by the full House in April 1998.  HR.37 established the Vermont Commission to Study Preference Voting.  The Commission has 11 members appointed by the League of Women Voters and Common Cause in accordance with HR.37.  The members are:

Chris Allen, political science student at UVM
Gerry Colby, author; chair, Vt. Local of the National Writers Union
Chris Costanzo, 1998 chair, Vermont Libertarian Party
Judy DiMario, former Democratic State Representative
Krista Griffes, political science student at St. Michael’s College
Marie P. Griffin, member of the League of Women Voters and a retired librarian
Lisa Martin, former Republican State Representative; past chair, Local Government Committee
*Marjorie Power, chair of this Commission; member of the Older Women’s League
Maria Thompson, chair, Vermont Common Cause
Bert Thompson, an employee and student of Johnson State College			
Bob Walker, a community organizer and an organizer for campaign finance reform in Vermont.

There are two general types of preference voting mentioned in HR.37.  The Commission early on decided to focus on statewide elections with IRV, and not on legislative elections with proportional representation.  The Commission: sponsored numerous mock elections using preference voting in junior and high senior high schools across Vermont; sought input from a variety of civic organizations; established a “devil’s advocate” committee to gather arguments against instant runoff voting; and heard from expert witnesses.  We would like to particularly thank Gregory Sanford, state archivist; Dr. William Grover, chair of the St. Michael’s College political science department; Dr. Douglas Amy, author and professor of politics at Mt. Holyoke College; the Center for Voting and Democracy, a Washington D.C. based non-partisan educational organization; and Rep. Terry Bouricius for their assistance in our effort.

SECTION 1. Executive Summary

	Instant Runoff Voting (IRV) is being recommended by this Commission as a remedy to potentially serious defect in Vermont’s election laws.  Vermont’s plurality election rules allow for the election of the candidate with the most, but less than half, of the votes, even if the majority of voters oppose this candidate and prefer a different one.  This is a fundamental defect that violates one of the most basic precepts of democracy: majority rule.   
	In the case of the office of governor, lieutenant governor and treasurer, Vermont’s constitution provides a fallback method of responding to this problem.  If no candidate receives a popular majority, a secret ballot election by the members of the general assembly, rather than the people, decides.  The general assembly has had to choose state officers 69 times, often electing a candidate that had come in second in the popular vote, in one case electing a third place candidate who had received 3% of the popular vote, and in another failing to elect a governor altogether.  
	In 35% of all election years at least one statewide race has had a result with no majority winner.  The problem is likely to get worse beginning in the year 2000 with the advent of public financing and the prospect of greater voter choice with a greater number of credible candidates.  
	Vermont’s voting systems have changed repeatedly through the years.  For most of  Vermont’s history a majority vote was required to win all single-seat elections.  Runoff-like re-votes were common until 1940 when a plurality of first-round votes was deemed sufficient for election to any office other than governor, lieutenant governor or treasurer.  The inconvenience of re-voting was felt to be a bigger problem than the risk of undemocratic outcomes.  Since IRV eliminates the inconvenience of re-voting, there is no longer any reason to use an election process that allows for the defeat of the candidate actually preferred by a majority of voters.
	IRV is preferable to a two-round runoff election in that it saves money, assures that the deciding election will have maximum voter turnout, and does not face constitutional problems. In a single election IRV ensures that a candidate preferred by most voters wins, and eliminates the existing problem of multiple candidates splintering the vote.
	The following is one scenario for how such a system could work in Vermont.  Voters would have the option of indicating on their ballots their first choice for each statewide office, and who their second, third or subsequent choices are, if their first choice doesn’t win.  Local election officials will face no additional burden, simply counting the first-choice votes, just as they do now.  If a candidate achieves a majority, the election is over.  If no candidate in a race ends up with a majority, the ballots are retabulated by a court appointed committee in a manner similar to how a statewide recount is conducted under current law. 

	Instant runoff re-count mirrors the vote counts that would occur if all the voters participated in runoff elections, except that voters have no need to return to the polls.  The candidate with the fewest first-choice votes is declared defeated.  In the subsequent count, first-choice votes for candidates still in the running again count for those candidates, but the voters whose first-choice candidate was eliminated have their votes transferred to their second choices, the same as occurs in a traditional runoff.   This process of dropping off bottom vote-getters and transferring their votes to their supporters’ alternate choices continues, until some candidate gets a majority.   
	The voters’ task is simple.  The voters just have to rank candidates in order of preference: 1, 2, 3, etc., or if they prefer, they can still vote for a single candidate as they do presently.  To effectively utilize the system voters do not need to learn any of the intricacies of the transfer tabulation methodology, just as hardly any citizens understand how the electoral college actually works.  Twenty-three American cities and various nations around the world have used preference ballots without difficulty.  Among Vermont students who answered a survey question after participating in mock elections using IRV, 91% said the balloting was not too difficult and 90% said Vermont should switch to IRV.	
	A voting system should allow citizens to honestly vote according to their consciences.   With Vermont’s existing system, some voters struggle with the decision of whether to vote for the candidate they actually prefer, or whether to vote for a “lesser” candidate who may have a better chance of winning, for fear of inadvertently helping the candidate the voter likes the least.  IRV does not penalize a voter for voting honestly, as can happen with our existing system.  IRV reduces, although it does not eliminate, the problem some voters face of feeling their vote has been “wasted.”	
	IRV eliminates the problem of multiple candidates splintering constituencies (the so-called “spoiler” effect).  Since it tends to allow a greater range of candidate choices, IRV can create greater voter interest and turnout.  Among high school students who participated in mock elections using IRV, 45% said IRV would make them more likely to vote after they turn eighteen and only 1% said it would make them less likely to vote. *
	IRV tends to reduce negative campaigning.  One reason for this is concern over alienating voters who would not give a nasty campaigner a second-preference vote, which that candidate might need to win.  Although negative campaigning has not yet become a serious problem in Vermont, IRV may help protect campaign civility here.
	IRV will not increase the cost of holding elections, other than the minimal cost of conducting recounts when there is the lack of a first-choice majority.  There would be some small transition cost for a voter education campaign.
	This reform does not give advantage or disadvantage to conservatives, liberals, major parties, or minor parties.  IRV simply assures that a candidate preferred by the majority will win.