By Dan Barlow and Toby Henry
Published November 2nd 2002 in Brattleboro Reformer
With three major candidates for both governor and lieutenant governor
set to divvy up the votes on Nov. 5, Vermonters face the very real
prospect of installing state leaders who did not capture the majority
of the vote.
Vermont's constitution specifies that if a candidate fails to garner a majority, the Legislature will make the decision by secret ballot.
In the governor's race this year, independent Cornelius "Con" Hogan is poised to siphon off what may be enough votes to keep either Republican State Treasurer Jim Douglas or Democratic Lt. Gov. Doug Racine from achieving a clear majority.
In an even closer contest, for lieutenant governor, Democratic state Sen. Peter Shumlin, Republican Brian Dubie and Progressive Anthony Pollina are running neck and neck in the polls.
As a result, the first votes that state senators and representatives cast when the Legislature convenes in January could be to determine who will fill either or both of Vermont's two top jobs.
About 70 times since the state was founded, candidates for state officer positions such as treasurer, auditor of accounts, governor and lieutenant governor have been elected by legislators without receiving the majority vote of at least "50 percent plus one" from Vermont voters.
It has played out since the state's first democratic election in 1778, when the lieutenant governor and treasurer candidates failed to capture a majority, to as recently as 1998, with the lieutenant governor race in 1998.
In interviews conducted over the past few weeks, Windham County Senate and House candidates revealed the factors that will guide their decision, if called upon to elect the governor and lieutenant governor.
Of the county's Senate hopefuls, most indicated they would vote for the candidate who receives the most votes statewide.
Norman Wright, a Westminster Republican, said while he was a legislator, in 1976, he was called upon to chose between lieutenant governor candidates T. Garry Buckley, a Republican, and John Alden, a Democrat, after Alden, pulled in 48.4 percent over Buckley's 47.6 percent.
Wright said he voted for Buckley, who was eventually elected.
But Wright said that if the situation arises this year, he will vote for the candidate who receives the statewide plurality. If the votes are tied or too close to indicate a true popular vote, he continued, he would look to the Windham County results to determine how to cast his ballot.
"I'm not going to vote in a way that solely reflects my own thinking unless these two options aren't available," he added.
Democratic Senate candidate Rod Gander of Brattleboro said he, too, would vote for the candidate with the largest statewide numbers.
"I hope that these votes don't go to the legislators, but I feel that the person who gets the most votes statewide should be elected," said Gander.
Fellow Democrat Jeanette White of Putney also said that the state plurality will be her guideline.
"Even though I'm representing Windham County, I think it's pretty clear that as senators, we should honor the wishes of the entire state," she said.
Only Republican Mike Hebert of Vernon said Windham County's voting results would determine the name on his ballot, although he added that it would be a matter that would require some careful consideration.
"You're elected by Windham County, and that's who you're representing in Montpelier, so I'd really have to debate with myself on that," Hebert said. "I've never been a habitual party voter and I don't see any prohibition on (voting with the county)."
Earlier in the campaign, Hebert was quoted as saying he would not vote for Shumlin "as a matter of conscience," even if Shumlin received the plurality. "It's a real dilemma for me, I'd have to go to the next guy. I'd vote for Anthony if he was the second guy," Hebert told one newspaper.
On the subject of the secret ballot, Hebert, Gander and White all said that they would publicly reveal who they voted for. Wright said that any concerned individual would be able to determine the nature of his vote by looking at the statewide totals.
"I wouldn't release my ballot, because I'm telling people now how I would vote," he said. "I have some problems with the process of secret ballot and making it public. In 1976, (former Brattleboro Reformer managing editor) Norman Runnion came up to me on the House floor and asked me how I voted -- I told him it was none of his business. If this was supposed to be a process of voice vote, then that's what the state constitution would have said."
Responses from incumbent and challenger House candidates on what factors would influence their ballot brought a range of responses, from those who said they would vote with their county constituents to those who would vote for the candidate with the largest statewide result, and those who said they would need to analyze the issue and speak with district voters before casting a ballot.
No candidate indicated that they would vote strictly along party lines.
Those who said they would follow the district results were moderate Republican Windham-6 candidate Roger Allbee, Democratic Windham-5 incumbent Steve Darrow, Republican Windham-1 incumbent Patricia O'Donnell, Democratic Windham-2 incumbent Bob Rusten, and Republican Windham-2 candidate Chris Richter.
Most said their vote would reflect the wishes of their district's constituency.
"I would vote the way the people in my district want me to vote," Richter said. "The number one job of any representative is to represent his constituents and to do what they want him to do. If the Legislature should end up determining whom the next governor or lieutenant governor should be, a representative is obligated to vote the way the people in his district want him to vote."
"Unless my district voted overwhelmingly for another candidate, I would vote for the candidate who received the most votes statewide," Darrow said.
"As a representative of the voters in Windham-6, I would cast my vote according to how the voters in the towns that I represent would vote for the offices of governor and lieutenant governor," Allbee said. "This is the purpose, I believe, of a representative democracy -- to represent your constituents."
Half of the House candidates who responded said that if no candidate achieves a majority, they will vote for the candidate with the largest number of statewide votes. Those candidates are Windham-4 Democrat Michael Obuchowski, Windham-5 independent candidate Margaret O'Toole, Democratic Windham-5 incumbent David Deen, Windham-6 independent Larry Kraft, Windham-2 independent Donald Webster, Windham-3 Progressive/Democrat Sarah Edwards, Windham-6 Democratic candidate Elizabeth Bolognani, Windham-2 independent Daryl Pillsbury, and Windham-5 write-in candidate Democrat Paul Kane.
Obuchowski summed up the comments of many candidates by stating that a vote for the candidate with the largest statewide plurality is the best way to honor "the will of the people."
"Anything else would make voters feel like their vote didn't matter," Obuchowski said. "People have problems with voting; whether their concerns are real or unsubstantiated is a matter of debate because they often feel their choice doesn't matter or their vote doesn't count. Not voting the way the state voted would be thwarting democracy."
Webster agreed, adding that the duty to elect the governor or lieutenant governor is an obligation that legislators owe to the state, and not an individual district or political party.
"I will vote for the candidate with the most votes statewide, however small the margin might be," Webster said. "The constitutional basis for a legislative decision when there is no majority is a vestige of the past, and I would support an amendment to replace it by any sensible option, such as instant runoff voting or a run-off election between the top two vote-getters."
Pillsbury said he would vote for the candidate that receives a statewide plurality to avoid the problems that resulted in Florida during the last presidential election.
And many candidates also echoed to the comments of Bolognani, who said a legislative vote is a scenario that very few look forward to.
"I hope that a candidate will get a clear majority," Bolognani said. "Let's hope we don't have to (have a legislative vote)."
Several candidates said they don't yet know how they will vote. Incumbent Democrat Carolyn Partridge of Windham-4, Windham-1 Democratic challenger Robert Stack, Republican Windham-4 candidate George Kuusela, Windham-2 incumbent Democrat Gini Milkey, and Windham-Bennington-Windsor Republican incumbent Richard Hube said they will need some time to consider their decision if the need for a legislative vote arises.
Partridge said her initial inclination is to vote for the candidate with the largest statewide vote, but she pointed out that lieutenant governor candidates Pollina and Shumlin have somewhat similar platforms. Her dilemma arises, she said, if Pollina and Shumlin were to each receive 30 percent of the vote and Republican candidate Brian Dubie received 35 percent. While Dubie would have a plurality, 60 percent of the state's voters would have favored the Pollina-Shumlin stance over the more conservative Dubie.
"We could be looking at a situation where, if either Pollina or Shumlin wasn't in the race, then voters would have selected the other candidate," she said. "Does that really mean we should vote for Brian Dubie because he got five more percentage points? I'm hoping we won't have to (cast ballots), because this is really a tough one," Partridge said.
Another Democrat, Stack, said that he would vote for the candidate whom he felt was best for the state, adding that he wouldn't vote for a candidates whose ideas and platforms he didn't support.
Milkey noted that the decision will be difficult because it requires a representative to balance the will of their constituency and the good of the state. She said her decision would follow the will of either the district or the state, not party lines or personal preference.
Among Republicans, Hube said he would consider statewide results in the context of his district's voting result and what he hears from his constituents.
Kuusela said his vote would depend heavily on the spread of votes between candidates. "It would make a difference what the spread was -- if it was only 100 votes or so, if there wasn't a clear mandate from the voters," he said. "There's no hanging chads here in Vermont, and I'm not saying I would vote for (the candidate with the largest number of votes statewide). I'm just saying I'd have to see what the spread was first."
When asked if they would make the content of their secret ballot public, the overwhelming majority of House candidates said they would divulge the name of the candidate they voted for. Only Kuusela, Deen and Hube said they would not reveal their decision.
"The Vermont constitution says it will be a secret ballot," Deen said. "The Legislature does not have the authority to up and decide that they are not going to follow the Vermont constitution. Without stating definitively how I would vote, it is my inclination to vote for the person who receives the largest number of votes statewide."
Hube and Kuusela concurred, with Hube noting that the state constitution is clear on the secret ballot process. "If we don't have faith in our officials to make the right decision, we need to change officials," he said.
Vermont's constitution specifies that if a candidate fails to garner a majority, the Legislature will make the decision by secret ballot.
In the governor's race this year, independent Cornelius "Con" Hogan is poised to siphon off what may be enough votes to keep either Republican State Treasurer Jim Douglas or Democratic Lt. Gov. Doug Racine from achieving a clear majority.
In an even closer contest, for lieutenant governor, Democratic state Sen. Peter Shumlin, Republican Brian Dubie and Progressive Anthony Pollina are running neck and neck in the polls.
As a result, the first votes that state senators and representatives cast when the Legislature convenes in January could be to determine who will fill either or both of Vermont's two top jobs.
About 70 times since the state was founded, candidates for state officer positions such as treasurer, auditor of accounts, governor and lieutenant governor have been elected by legislators without receiving the majority vote of at least "50 percent plus one" from Vermont voters.
It has played out since the state's first democratic election in 1778, when the lieutenant governor and treasurer candidates failed to capture a majority, to as recently as 1998, with the lieutenant governor race in 1998.
In interviews conducted over the past few weeks, Windham County Senate and House candidates revealed the factors that will guide their decision, if called upon to elect the governor and lieutenant governor.
Of the county's Senate hopefuls, most indicated they would vote for the candidate who receives the most votes statewide.
Norman Wright, a Westminster Republican, said while he was a legislator, in 1976, he was called upon to chose between lieutenant governor candidates T. Garry Buckley, a Republican, and John Alden, a Democrat, after Alden, pulled in 48.4 percent over Buckley's 47.6 percent.
Wright said he voted for Buckley, who was eventually elected.
But Wright said that if the situation arises this year, he will vote for the candidate who receives the statewide plurality. If the votes are tied or too close to indicate a true popular vote, he continued, he would look to the Windham County results to determine how to cast his ballot.
"I'm not going to vote in a way that solely reflects my own thinking unless these two options aren't available," he added.
Democratic Senate candidate Rod Gander of Brattleboro said he, too, would vote for the candidate with the largest statewide numbers.
"I hope that these votes don't go to the legislators, but I feel that the person who gets the most votes statewide should be elected," said Gander.
Fellow Democrat Jeanette White of Putney also said that the state plurality will be her guideline.
"Even though I'm representing Windham County, I think it's pretty clear that as senators, we should honor the wishes of the entire state," she said.
Only Republican Mike Hebert of Vernon said Windham County's voting results would determine the name on his ballot, although he added that it would be a matter that would require some careful consideration.
"You're elected by Windham County, and that's who you're representing in Montpelier, so I'd really have to debate with myself on that," Hebert said. "I've never been a habitual party voter and I don't see any prohibition on (voting with the county)."
Earlier in the campaign, Hebert was quoted as saying he would not vote for Shumlin "as a matter of conscience," even if Shumlin received the plurality. "It's a real dilemma for me, I'd have to go to the next guy. I'd vote for Anthony if he was the second guy," Hebert told one newspaper.
On the subject of the secret ballot, Hebert, Gander and White all said that they would publicly reveal who they voted for. Wright said that any concerned individual would be able to determine the nature of his vote by looking at the statewide totals.
"I wouldn't release my ballot, because I'm telling people now how I would vote," he said. "I have some problems with the process of secret ballot and making it public. In 1976, (former Brattleboro Reformer managing editor) Norman Runnion came up to me on the House floor and asked me how I voted -- I told him it was none of his business. If this was supposed to be a process of voice vote, then that's what the state constitution would have said."
Responses from incumbent and challenger House candidates on what factors would influence their ballot brought a range of responses, from those who said they would vote with their county constituents to those who would vote for the candidate with the largest statewide result, and those who said they would need to analyze the issue and speak with district voters before casting a ballot.
No candidate indicated that they would vote strictly along party lines.
Those who said they would follow the district results were moderate Republican Windham-6 candidate Roger Allbee, Democratic Windham-5 incumbent Steve Darrow, Republican Windham-1 incumbent Patricia O'Donnell, Democratic Windham-2 incumbent Bob Rusten, and Republican Windham-2 candidate Chris Richter.
Most said their vote would reflect the wishes of their district's constituency.
"I would vote the way the people in my district want me to vote," Richter said. "The number one job of any representative is to represent his constituents and to do what they want him to do. If the Legislature should end up determining whom the next governor or lieutenant governor should be, a representative is obligated to vote the way the people in his district want him to vote."
"Unless my district voted overwhelmingly for another candidate, I would vote for the candidate who received the most votes statewide," Darrow said.
"As a representative of the voters in Windham-6, I would cast my vote according to how the voters in the towns that I represent would vote for the offices of governor and lieutenant governor," Allbee said. "This is the purpose, I believe, of a representative democracy -- to represent your constituents."
Half of the House candidates who responded said that if no candidate achieves a majority, they will vote for the candidate with the largest number of statewide votes. Those candidates are Windham-4 Democrat Michael Obuchowski, Windham-5 independent candidate Margaret O'Toole, Democratic Windham-5 incumbent David Deen, Windham-6 independent Larry Kraft, Windham-2 independent Donald Webster, Windham-3 Progressive/Democrat Sarah Edwards, Windham-6 Democratic candidate Elizabeth Bolognani, Windham-2 independent Daryl Pillsbury, and Windham-5 write-in candidate Democrat Paul Kane.
Obuchowski summed up the comments of many candidates by stating that a vote for the candidate with the largest statewide plurality is the best way to honor "the will of the people."
"Anything else would make voters feel like their vote didn't matter," Obuchowski said. "People have problems with voting; whether their concerns are real or unsubstantiated is a matter of debate because they often feel their choice doesn't matter or their vote doesn't count. Not voting the way the state voted would be thwarting democracy."
Webster agreed, adding that the duty to elect the governor or lieutenant governor is an obligation that legislators owe to the state, and not an individual district or political party.
"I will vote for the candidate with the most votes statewide, however small the margin might be," Webster said. "The constitutional basis for a legislative decision when there is no majority is a vestige of the past, and I would support an amendment to replace it by any sensible option, such as instant runoff voting or a run-off election between the top two vote-getters."
Pillsbury said he would vote for the candidate that receives a statewide plurality to avoid the problems that resulted in Florida during the last presidential election.
And many candidates also echoed to the comments of Bolognani, who said a legislative vote is a scenario that very few look forward to.
"I hope that a candidate will get a clear majority," Bolognani said. "Let's hope we don't have to (have a legislative vote)."
Several candidates said they don't yet know how they will vote. Incumbent Democrat Carolyn Partridge of Windham-4, Windham-1 Democratic challenger Robert Stack, Republican Windham-4 candidate George Kuusela, Windham-2 incumbent Democrat Gini Milkey, and Windham-Bennington-Windsor Republican incumbent Richard Hube said they will need some time to consider their decision if the need for a legislative vote arises.
Partridge said her initial inclination is to vote for the candidate with the largest statewide vote, but she pointed out that lieutenant governor candidates Pollina and Shumlin have somewhat similar platforms. Her dilemma arises, she said, if Pollina and Shumlin were to each receive 30 percent of the vote and Republican candidate Brian Dubie received 35 percent. While Dubie would have a plurality, 60 percent of the state's voters would have favored the Pollina-Shumlin stance over the more conservative Dubie.
"We could be looking at a situation where, if either Pollina or Shumlin wasn't in the race, then voters would have selected the other candidate," she said. "Does that really mean we should vote for Brian Dubie because he got five more percentage points? I'm hoping we won't have to (cast ballots), because this is really a tough one," Partridge said.
Another Democrat, Stack, said that he would vote for the candidate whom he felt was best for the state, adding that he wouldn't vote for a candidates whose ideas and platforms he didn't support.
Milkey noted that the decision will be difficult because it requires a representative to balance the will of their constituency and the good of the state. She said her decision would follow the will of either the district or the state, not party lines or personal preference.
Among Republicans, Hube said he would consider statewide results in the context of his district's voting result and what he hears from his constituents.
Kuusela said his vote would depend heavily on the spread of votes between candidates. "It would make a difference what the spread was -- if it was only 100 votes or so, if there wasn't a clear mandate from the voters," he said. "There's no hanging chads here in Vermont, and I'm not saying I would vote for (the candidate with the largest number of votes statewide). I'm just saying I'd have to see what the spread was first."
When asked if they would make the content of their secret ballot public, the overwhelming majority of House candidates said they would divulge the name of the candidate they voted for. Only Kuusela, Deen and Hube said they would not reveal their decision.
"The Vermont constitution says it will be a secret ballot," Deen said. "The Legislature does not have the authority to up and decide that they are not going to follow the Vermont constitution. Without stating definitively how I would vote, it is my inclination to vote for the person who receives the largest number of votes statewide."
Hube and Kuusela concurred, with Hube noting that the state constitution is clear on the secret ballot process. "If we don't have faith in our officials to make the right decision, we need to change officials," he said.
Election Day '09 was a roller-coaster for election reformers. Instant runoff voting had a great night in Minnesota, where St. Paul voters chose to implement IRV for its city elections, and Minneapolis voters used IRV for the first time—with local media touting it as a big success. As the Star-Tribune noted in endorsing IRV for St. Paul, Tuesday’s elections give the Twin Cities a chance to show the whole state of Minnesota the benefits of adopting IRV. There were disappointments in Lowell and Pierce County too, but high-profile multi-candidate races in New Jersey and New York keep policymakers focused on ways to reform elections; the Baltimore Sun and Miami Herald were among many newspapers publishing commentary from FairVote board member and former presidential candidate John Anderson on how IRV can mitigate the problems of plurality elections.