A council majority approved a resolution that asks the council’s Charter Change Committee to consider reinstating the voting method. The subcommittee will now review whether to recommend adding the item to the March 2020 ballot.
The final council vote tally was 9 to 3, with Council President Kurt Wright (R-Ward 4) and councilors Chip Mason (D-Ward 5) and Joan Shannon (D-South District) voting no.
“We currently have a voting system that I feel is very flawed and does not accurately represent the will of the majority of voters,” said Councilor Jack Hanson (P-East District), who spearheaded the proposal.
Under the current setup, a candidate can get just 40 percent of the vote to win a race; ranked-choice voting requires a 50 percent majority. The method allows voters to rank candidates in order of preference. If their first choice is eliminated, votes for that candidate are reassigned to the voters’ second choice and so on until one candidate earns 50 percent or more of the vote.
After using the system for five years, Burlington voters abolished ranked-choice voting in 2010. The resolution’s supporters say the current system puts independent and non-major party candidates at a disadvantage because voters feel obligated to support the candidate who is most likely to win instead of who best represents their views.
But in reality, Wright said, hopefuls are afraid to take strong stances on important issues for fear of losing more votes. He said prior campaigns were “homogenous” and “vanilla.”
The rest of Monday’s debate, however, focused on the process of passing the resolution instead of the merits of its contents.
Several councilors said the proposal was too rushed. Shannon, who supports ranked-choice, said the charter subcommittee has a full plate and doesn’t have a meeting scheduled for December. That’s problematic given that all charter change amendments must come back to the full council by December 16, she said.
Shannon proposed giving the charter subcommittee until March 23 to study ranked-choice or “other election methods,” but her amendment failed in a six to six tie. Shannon said constituents have told her that ranked-choice is too complicated.
The public should be given more time to vet the proposal since “confusion in our voting system is not a good thing,” she said.
Hanson said voters can decide if the issue is too confusing and noted that many Burlingtonians are already familiar with ranked-choice voting. Councilor Sharon Bushor (I-Ward 1) said that’s part of the problem.
“Because it’s not a new idea, it has some baggage,” she said, adding that it could take more time to get voters on board.
“I don’t want this to get defeated,” Bushor added. “I want this to pass. I’ve been very clear about that all along that that is my goal.”
The effort earned letters of support from a group of current and former Vermont politicians and from FairVote Action, a national advocate for electoral system reform. FairVote president Rob Richie wrote that more than 20 areas nationwide have adopted ranked-choice voting since Burlington rejected it in 2010. New York City is one: 73 percent of voters there supported the measure on a ballot in early November. The state of Maine adopted it in 2016.
The resolution also got support from numerous members of the public.
“Whether or not this is good for yourself or good for your party or whatever else, that’s not what the voters care about,” Joe O’Brien said. “We care about being represented.”
Related Stories
Got something to say?
Send a letter to the editor and we'll publish your feedback in print!
A group of bored, overpaid city councillors actually thinks voters care about process?
No.
What voters care about is the exploding city budget that continually requires more and more tax money to finance it.
That’s what these councilors should be concerned about – their profligate, taxpayer-draining spending habits.
Otherwise all they are doing is talking about process – and a way to protect lazy, bored incumbents.
Same goes for the tax-loving council chief – go cut spending and stop indulging these process agents in a nonsensical discussion unrelated to your municipal fiduciary responsibility.
To the reader: If you own property in Vermont’s largest city, go take a look at your tax bill. Then compare it to 1, 5, 10 – however many years ago.
If you are happy with your tax bill, go argue about a mural.
(About as productive as debating an esoteric electoral process while the city falls apart due to burgeoning crime, rising taxes and a downtown devoid of shops and shoppers.)
If ranked choice voting had been in place in the last mayoral election, we would now know if Miro could have garnered 50% of the vote. Now we will always wonder what a different city we would have if he had not.
Bob Kiss. Ranked choice voting got us Bob Kiss! I’d honestly rather they debate moving to the metric system. Bob freaking Kiss. If we’re lucky it’ll take Burlington another ten years to recover from the ranked choice voting process that cursed us with that incompetent buffoon.
According to Councilor Perri Freeman we can learn how ranked voting works in a 3 minute youtube video or by ranking beer at a brew pub!
REALLY?
The “IRV got us Bob Kiss” argument is absolutely foolish. People elect bad candidates all the time, across the globe, using all different types of electoral systems. Give me a break. The system is to encourage that the voters’ voices are heard, even if their voices call for elected officials who, in hindsight, are not the best choice.
“If ranked choice voting had been in place in the last mayoral election, we would now know if Miro could have garnered 50% of the vote. Now we will always wonder what a different city we would have if he had not.”
If, if, if. You can’t get over the fact that after seeing what your election scheme gave us in two elections Burlingtonians ran to the polls to get rid of it. You can’t get over the fact that in a real election, the majority of voters said no to Carina “Bob Kiss II” Driscoll.
I vote for Barbara and Some of Us, not for Knowyour or Ted.
Likes? Dislikes? Ha ha ha ha ha.
How dumb are these people!?
Burlington’s previous experiments with IRV are the textbook example for why IRV is undemocratic garbage, and they’re trying to adopt it AGAIN?? Are they incapable of reading about their own previous election, in which IRV elected a candidate despite 54% of the voters preferring someone else?
There are dozens, maybe hundreds of different voting methods you could adopt that are more democratic than RCV. Adopt STAR voting, some kind of Score/Approval variant, or some Condorcet-compliant ranked system. Anything but IRV again.
Here comes the progressive takeover of Burlington. Democrats and Republicans better act now or forever hold your peace
Tim – how can I find out about those dozens, or hundreds, of other types of voting? I’m really not in the know.
Next, they will pass a law where they will vote for the taxpayers. after all these fools think they know better than us on who to vote for.. Just like the idiots who are in Montpelier (legislators). The last I checked this was Vermont. A good state that used to be strong. Now all the idiots have moved in and made it a socialist state, a pussy state. No wonder people are leaving… Our votes don’t count anymore.
If IRV voting had been in place when Bernie Sanders first ran for mayor, he would not have won that three way race. Watch out for what you wish for with IRV. Just sayin.
Why would anyone want to accept a system that has uninformed allocation of votes? Nobody knows who is left after the 1st or 2nd round of votes. So if you make choices based on your second choice and that second choice is no longer available, you’ve voted for someone that’s no longer running. It makes more sense if you were able to vote after each round with the full knowledge of who is remaining and who got knocked otherwise so your vote strategy would be informed. This is the main failing of IRV voting, uninformed voting of whoever is left after each round. It may be more time consuming, and expensive but Burlington is better off with a runoff election after the first election if no one gets 40%. If your side can’t be bothered to show up for the runoff, to make an informed decision based on the remaining candidates then you probably deserve to lose. I’ve offered it before but it makes for interesting reading for anyone interested in how odd the last election using IRV was that led to the disastrous Kiss administration. https://rangevoting.org/Burlington.html It’s all starting to feel like the Progressives want to find a way to win without having to compete like a traditional party does by relying on a majority or plurality. This system doesn’t produce a winner that lost the first two rounds against the people’s choice only to win in the 3rd round. That’s doesn’t pass the smell test for a fair election.
Charlie Messing, I’m not sure if this supports threaded replies or URLs, so I’ll just post another comment:
There is a good intro to different voting methods and their problems at ncase dot me slash ballot
STAR Voting has its own campaign website, which you can find by searching “star voting pros and cons”.
Baldwin’s method and Coomb’s method are ranked-choice methods that don’t eliminate the most-preferred candidate as often as IRV does. You can read about them on Wikipedia. If you search for “Condorcet method” you will find dozens of others.
Hi Tim – thanks for the link! Politics is not usually my pursuit. And yes, you can put a link inside one of these comments. I’ll check it out!