Despite winning a close vote, the bill's future is uncertain. The Senate held its final vote on the issue following a short floor debate. Advocates say IRV does away with the spoiler effect, the perception that voting for a third party candidate might come at the cost of a major party candidate.

Sen. Richard McCormick (D-Windsor) said, "People can vote their conscience without fear of creating the anomalous result of splitting the majority. So I will support the bill."

Opponents of IRV defended the existing system, in which (in congressional races) the person with the most votes wins, even if the number is less than fifty percent. Sen. George Coppenrath (R-Caledonia) pointed to examples of successful Vermont candidates who won with less than clear majorities. "We have had several candidates elected to office through a plurality system," he noted. "Representative Peter Smith, Bernie Sanders. Patrick Leahy -- twice. And even senator Stafford. And I would suggest that receiving the most votes in a plurality does not not reflect negatively on a person's ability to hold office."

IRV passed on a roll call vote of sixteen to twelve, with two senators absent. A spokesman for the lobby Common Cause admits that IRV may be its own worst enemy. Curt Fisher said, "If anything, I think it has thwarted the progress of IRV for a long time because it is sort of the political elephant in the room. Democrats are nervous that the Progressives might eat into the base of support. Some Democrats may consider it a political advantage."

He said supporters decided to limit the measure to congressional races to give it a test, in effect an experiment that might be expanded later to include state races.

Gov. Jim Douglas has already declared himself "strongly opposed" to IRV. He told reporters at his weekly news conference, "It's not a choice where people vote for candidates who thry think are the best to serve but strategize about who might be stronger or weaker in a theoretical runoff. And I think it really moves away from an issues-based choice and more to a political game."

The governor stopped short of threatening a veto if IRV makes it to his desk. It's still in a House committee and may not be considered on the House floor until next year. But the governor left no doubt he would not sign it into law. That, plus a split among Democrats, indicates that IRV faces an uphill challenge.