On March 16th, Former Vermont Governor and Democratic National Committee Chair Howard Dean continued his support for instant runoff voting on Vermont Radio's Mark Johnson Show. Commenting on Burlington's recent IRV election, Dean said "I think the best and most democratic way to use to elect people in multiparty elections is instant runoff voting." Dean also supported the system when it was first used in Burlington in 2006.
Citizens of Burlington, Vermont went to the polls on Tuesday, March 3rd to vote for the second time in an election using instant runoff voting. At 8:25 PM, the city declared that incumbent Mayor Bob Kiss had won reelection in the third and final round of counting, narrowly edging out challenger Kurt Wright, 51.5% to 48.5%. The race was unique in that it had four candidates that had a legitimate shot at winning: Progressive Kiss, Republican Wright, Democrat Andy Montroll, and independent Dan Smith. In most other American cities, there would be fear of "spoiler" candidates, but IRV allowed all four candidates to run without having to worry about being labeled "spoilers."
On April 4, Vermont governor Jim Douglas chose to veto legislation to re-establish majority elections for Congress in his state through instant runoff voting. Vermont would have been the first state to enact IRV for Congress; legislative leaders affirmed their commitment to the bill, and it is sure to move in the state again. FairVote has worked hard to support this legislation, which likely generated more than 600 phone calls to the governor from Vermonters.By Brattleboro Reformer Editorial
Published April 8th 2008 in Brattleboro Reformer
To the surprise of no one, Gov. James Douglas vetoed two election reform
bills late Friday afternoon.
Douglas rejected a bill that would have set new campaign finance limits and another that would have allowed instant runoff voting for Vermont congressional elections with three or more candidates.
It was not surprising because the Republican Party has never been interested in any measure that would break the stranglehold of big money in politics. Nor has the Republican Party been interested in any measure that would give third parties a chance.
We'll leave aside campaign finance reform for now, since that bill never really stood a chance. As long as the U.S. Supreme Court equates money with political speech, it's difficult for any change to the current system to pass judicial scrutiny.
There are no excuses, however, for Douglas to veto instant runoff voting (IRV), which allows voters to rank the candidates in an election race based on preference.
IRV is not complicated. When votes are cast, all votes applied to the first choices on the ballot are tabulated and the candidate with the most votes wins.
If no candidate receives a majority of the votes, the candidate receiving the fewest votes is eliminated and a "runoff" tabulation begins. In the runoff, your vote still goes to the candidate you ranked first on your ballot, unless that candidate was eliminated. In that case, your vote goes to your second choice on the ballot.
This system of eliminating the lowest candidate and recounting the votes continues until one candidate has a majority of the votes. Each time, your vote is applied to the candidate you ranked highest who still in the running.
The main appeal of IRV is that it allows voters to give their support to a candidate they like best, even if that candidate has no chance of winning, without the fear that they are throwing their vote away or taking support away from a more popular candidate. Your ballot counts even after your favorite candidate is eliminated, so every voter has a say in the process.
So, why is there so much resistance to this simple idea?
For starters, the Republicans don't want to see anything that improves the chances of third parties to succeed. IRV would instantly eliminate the whole "spoiler" scenario that cripples voters who want to vote for a Progressive, Liberty Union or independent candidate, but are afraid to do because it would increase the chances of seeing a candidate they don't want to win get elected.
There are others that say it is too complicated and would confuse voters. Burlington used IRV in its last mayoral election in 2006, and it worked smoothly. Other cities around the country have used IRV without incident.
In a state like Vermont, where third parties are an established part of the political landscape, and voters are used to casting their ballots for candidates outside the major parties, instant runoff voting is a sensible idea.
Unfortunately, Douglas doesn't agree and there don't seem to be enough votes to override his veto.
We think Douglas is wrong. We think IRV should be used, not just for congressional races, but for every election at the local and state level in Vermont. Imagine how, say, the Brattleboro Selectboard election might have turned out this year if IRV was in place?
Instant runoff voting strengthens third parties. It eliminates the risk of additional candidates in a race undermining support for the most popular candidate. It allows the will of a majority of voters to be reflected at the polls, no matter how many candidates are running. What's not to like?
Douglas rejected a bill that would have set new campaign finance limits and another that would have allowed instant runoff voting for Vermont congressional elections with three or more candidates.
It was not surprising because the Republican Party has never been interested in any measure that would break the stranglehold of big money in politics. Nor has the Republican Party been interested in any measure that would give third parties a chance.
We'll leave aside campaign finance reform for now, since that bill never really stood a chance. As long as the U.S. Supreme Court equates money with political speech, it's difficult for any change to the current system to pass judicial scrutiny.
There are no excuses, however, for Douglas to veto instant runoff voting (IRV), which allows voters to rank the candidates in an election race based on preference.
IRV is not complicated. When votes are cast, all votes applied to the first choices on the ballot are tabulated and the candidate with the most votes wins.
If no candidate receives a majority of the votes, the candidate receiving the fewest votes is eliminated and a "runoff" tabulation begins. In the runoff, your vote still goes to the candidate you ranked first on your ballot, unless that candidate was eliminated. In that case, your vote goes to your second choice on the ballot.
This system of eliminating the lowest candidate and recounting the votes continues until one candidate has a majority of the votes. Each time, your vote is applied to the candidate you ranked highest who still in the running.
The main appeal of IRV is that it allows voters to give their support to a candidate they like best, even if that candidate has no chance of winning, without the fear that they are throwing their vote away or taking support away from a more popular candidate. Your ballot counts even after your favorite candidate is eliminated, so every voter has a say in the process.
So, why is there so much resistance to this simple idea?
For starters, the Republicans don't want to see anything that improves the chances of third parties to succeed. IRV would instantly eliminate the whole "spoiler" scenario that cripples voters who want to vote for a Progressive, Liberty Union or independent candidate, but are afraid to do because it would increase the chances of seeing a candidate they don't want to win get elected.
There are others that say it is too complicated and would confuse voters. Burlington used IRV in its last mayoral election in 2006, and it worked smoothly. Other cities around the country have used IRV without incident.
In a state like Vermont, where third parties are an established part of the political landscape, and voters are used to casting their ballots for candidates outside the major parties, instant runoff voting is a sensible idea.
Unfortunately, Douglas doesn't agree and there don't seem to be enough votes to override his veto.
We think Douglas is wrong. We think IRV should be used, not just for congressional races, but for every election at the local and state level in Vermont. Imagine how, say, the Brattleboro Selectboard election might have turned out this year if IRV was in place?
Instant runoff voting strengthens third parties. It eliminates the risk of additional candidates in a race undermining support for the most popular candidate. It allows the will of a majority of voters to be reflected at the polls, no matter how many candidates are running. What's not to like?
