2009 Burlington mayoral election: Difference between revisions
AndyAnderson (talk | contribs) Restore 99.9% figure for successful ranking of at least one candidate; restore reference to bullet voting, a useful term describing single preferences in many election systems; correct non-participation figure and provide accurate description of final round voting |
AndyAnderson (talk | contribs) →Analysis: Expanded description of what a runoff election would have meant in this context, as well as what it meant to be a “spoiler” in the two cases mentioned. |
||
| Line 185: | Line 185: | ||
== Analysis == |
== Analysis == |
||
[[FairVote]] touted the 2009 election as one of its major success stories,<ref name=":4">{{Cite news |last=Etnier |first=Carl |date=March 6, 2009 |title=Instant runoff was success |url=https://www.rutlandherald.com/articles/instant-runoff-was-success/ |access-date=March 17, 2018 |work=Rutland Herald}}</ref> |
[[FairVote]] touted the 2009 election as one of its major success stories,<ref name=":4">{{Cite news |last=Etnier |first=Carl |date=March 6, 2009 |title=Instant runoff was success |url=https://www.rutlandherald.com/articles/instant-runoff-was-success/ |access-date=March 17, 2018 |work=Rutland Herald}}</ref> due to IRV helping the city save on the costs of a traditional runoff, where the two leading candidates in the first round, Wright and Kiss, would have faced off in a second election, and Kiss would still have won. They also noted that IRV prevented a [[Spoiler effect|spoiler effect]], where Wright would have won a simple plurality election due to the two left-leaning candidates, Kiss and Montroll, splitting a majority of the vote between them, when either of them would have beaten Wright head-to-head if the other had not been in the race.<ref name=":0">{{Cite web |last=Bouricius |first=Terry |date=March 17, 2009 |title=Response to Faulty Analysis of Burlington IRV Election |url=http://www.fairvote.org/response-to-faulty-analysis-of-burlington-irv-election |access-date=October 1, 2017 |website=FairVote.org |quote=successfully prevented the election of the candidate who would likely have won under plurality rules, but would have lost to either of the other top finishers in a runoff}}</ref> However, another analysis pointed out that Wright himself was a type of spoiler, pulling away conservative votes from Montroll, who would otherwise have been able to defeat Kiss in a one-on-one race.<ref name=":5">{{Cite news|url=https://www.sevendaysvt.com/vermont/burlington-residents-seek-repeal-of-instant-runoff-voting/Content?oid=2177125|title=Burlington Residents Seek Repeal of Instant Runoff Voting|last=Totten|first=Shay|work=Seven Days|access-date=March 17, 2018|language=en|quote=We waited to bring in the signatures because we didn't want this to be about Kurt Wright losing after being ahead, or Andy Montroll who had more first and second place votes and didn't win. We wanted this to be about IRV.}}</ref><ref name=":3">{{Cite web |last1=Laatu |first1=Juho |last2=Smith |first2=Warren D. |date=March 2009 |title=THE RANK-ORDER VOTES IN THE 2009 BURLINGTON MAYORAL ELECTION |url=https://rangevoting.org/JLburl09.txt}}</ref><ref name=":10">{{Cite journal |last=Lewyn |first=Michael |date=2012 |title=Two Cheers for Instant Runoff Voting |journal=Phoenix L. Rev. |language=en |volume=6 |page=117 |ssrn=2276015 |quote=election where Democratic candidate for mayor was Condorcet winner but finished third behind Republican and 'Progressive{{'-}}}}</ref> |
||
FairVote also claimed the election was successful because 99.9% of voters were able to fill out at least one preference on their [[Ranked voting|ranked-choice ballot]].<ref name=":0" /> However, 16% of voters [[Bullet voting|bullet-voted]] for only one candidate, and 7% of ballots did not rank either of the candidates in the final round, leading some observers to question this interpretation.<ref>{{Cite web |title=Voter Paradox in the 2009 Burlington IRV Mayoral Race |url=http://rangevoting.org/UVMburl09.pdf |quote=Figure: Percent of voters who made a 1st choice, 2nd choice, etc., 2006 and 2009 Burlington mayoral election. 2 choices = 83.5%}}</ref><ref name=":3" /> |
FairVote also claimed the election was successful because 99.9% of voters were able to fill out at least one preference on their [[Ranked voting|ranked-choice ballot]].<ref name=":0" /> However, 16% of voters [[Bullet voting|bullet-voted]] for only one candidate, and 7% of ballots did not rank either of the candidates in the final round, leading some observers to question this interpretation.<ref>{{Cite web |title=Voter Paradox in the 2009 Burlington IRV Mayoral Race |url=http://rangevoting.org/UVMburl09.pdf |quote=Figure: Percent of voters who made a 1st choice, 2nd choice, etc., 2006 and 2009 Burlington mayoral election. 2 choices = 83.5%}}</ref><ref name=":3" /> |
||
Revision as of 18:30, 16 March 2024
 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
   Kiss: 30–40% 40–50% 50–60% 60–70% 70–80% Wright: 50–60% 60–70% Montroll: 30–40% 40–50% | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Elections in Vermont |
|---|
 |
The 2009 Burlington mayoral election was held in March 2009 for the city of Burlington, Vermont. This was the second mayoral election since the city's 2005 change to instant-runoff voting (IRV), after the 2006 mayoral election.[1] In the 2009 election, incumbent Burlington mayor (Bob Kiss) won reelection as a member of the Vermont Progressive Party[2] amid controversy over several election pathologies, which resulted in Kiss being declared winner as a result of 750 votes cast against his candidacy.[3]
Unlike in the city's first IRV mayoral election three years prior, however, Kiss was neither the plurality winner (since Republican candidate Kurt Wright won a plurality of first-place votes) nor the Condorcet winner (Democratic candidate Andy Montroll was the pairwise winner).[4][5] This led to a controversy about the use of IRV in mayoral elections,[3] culminating in a successful 2010 citizen's initiative repealing IRV's use by a vote of 52% to 48%.[6][7][8]
Background
The city of Burlington, Vermont approved IRV for use in mayoral elections with a 64% vote in 2005,[1] at a time when IRV was used only in a few local elections in the United States.[9] The 2006 Burlington mayoral election was decided by two rounds of IRV tallying, selecting candidate Bob Kiss of the Vermont Progressive Party (VPP). In the election, Kiss prevailed over Democrat Hinda Miller and Republican Kevin Curley. With his election Kiss became the second member of the VPP to be elected to the office after Peter Clavelle.
Candidates
- Bob Kiss (P), incumbent mayor (elected in 2006) seeking second term
- Andy Montroll (D), then current member of the Burlington City Council
- Dan Smith (I), lawyer
- James Simpson (G), owner of human-powered transportation services company in Burlington
- Kurt Wright (R), then current City Councilor and State Representative
Results
Unlike Burlington's first IRV mayoral election in 2006, the mayoral race in 2009 was decided in three rounds. Bob Kiss won the election, receiving 28.8% of the vote in the first round and 48.0% in the final round (51.5% excluding exhausted ballots), defeating final challenger Kurt Wright (who received more votes than Kiss in the earlier rounds, but only received 45.2% in the final round).
| Party | Candidate | Maximum round |
Maximum votes |
Share in maximum round |
Maximum votes First round votesTransfer votes
| |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Progressive | Bob Kiss | 3 | 4,313 | 48.0% |
| |
| Republican | Kurt Wright | 3 | 4,061 | 45.2% |
| |
| Democratic | Andy Montroll | 2 | 2,554 | 28.4% |
| |
| Independent | Dan Smith | 1 | 1,306 | 14.5% |
| |
| Green | James Simpson | 1 | 35 | 0.4% |
| |
| Write-in | 1 | 36 | 0.4% |
| ||
| Exhausted votes | 606 | 6.7% |
| |||
The elimination rounds were as follows:[10][11]
| Candidates | 1st round | 2nd round | 3rd round | |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Candidate | Party | Votes | % | % Active | ± | Votes | % | % Active | ± | Votes | % | % Active |
| Bob Kiss | Progressive | 2,585 | 28.8% | 28.8% | +396 | 2,981 | 33.2% | 33.8% | +1332 | 4,313 | 48.0% | 51.5% |
| Kurt Wright | Republican | 2,951 | 32.9% | 32.9% | +343 | 3,294 | 36.7% | 37.3% | +767 | 4,061 | 45.2% | 48.5% |
| Andy Montroll | Democrat | 2,063 | 23.0% | 23.0% | +491 | 2,554 | 28.4% | 28.9% | 
|
Eliminated | ||
| Dan Smith | Independent | 1,306 | 14.5% | 14.5% |
|
Eliminated | ||||||
| James Simpson | Green | 35 | 0.4% | 0.4% |
|
Eliminated | ||||||
| Write-in | 40 | 0.4% | 0.4% |
|
Eliminated | |||||||
| Exhausted | 0 | 0.0% | 0.0% | +147 | 151 | 1.7% | +455 | 606 | 6.7% | |||
| Total | 8980 | 100.0% | 8980 | 100.0% | 8980 | 100.0% | ||||||
Analysis
FairVote touted the 2009 election as one of its major success stories,[12] due to IRV helping the city save on the costs of a traditional runoff, where the two leading candidates in the first round, Wright and Kiss, would have faced off in a second election, and Kiss would still have won. They also noted that IRV prevented a spoiler effect, where Wright would have won a simple plurality election due to the two left-leaning candidates, Kiss and Montroll, splitting a majority of the vote between them, when either of them would have beaten Wright head-to-head if the other had not been in the race.[13] However, another analysis pointed out that Wright himself was a type of spoiler, pulling away conservative votes from Montroll, who would otherwise have been able to defeat Kiss in a one-on-one race.[14][15][16]
FairVote also claimed the election was successful because 99.9% of voters were able to fill out at least one preference on their ranked-choice ballot.[13] However, 16% of voters bullet-voted for only one candidate, and 7% of ballots did not rank either of the candidates in the final round, leading some observers to question this interpretation.[17][15]
Some mathematicians and voting theorists criticized the election results as revealing several pathologies associated with instant-runoff voting, noting that Kiss was elected as a result of 750 votes cast against him (ranking Kiss in last place).[18][19]
Several electoral reform advocates branded the election a failure after Kiss was elected, despite 54% of voters voting for Montroll over Kiss,[20][21] violating the principle of majority rule.[16][22][23]
Locals argued the system was convoluted,[14] turned the election into a "gambling game" by disqualifying Montroll for having won too many votes,[19][24] and "eliminated the most popular moderate candidate and elected an extremist".[24]
The results of every possible one-on-one election can be completed as follows:
|
Andy Montroll (D) | 6262 (Montroll) –
591 (Simpson) |
4570 (Montroll) –
2997 (Smith) |
4597 (Montroll) –
3664 (Wright) |
4064 (Montroll) –
3476 (Kiss) |
4/4 Wins |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Bob Kiss (P) | 5514 (Kiss) –
844 (Simpson) |
3944 (Kiss) –
3576 (Smith) |
4313 (Kiss) –
4061 (Wright) |
3/4 Wins | |
|
Kurt Wright (R) | 5270 (Wright) –
1310 (Simpson) |
3971 (Wright) –
3793 (Smith) |
2/4 Wins | ||
| Dan Smith (I) | 5570 (Smith) –
721 (Simpson) |
1/4 Wins | ||||
|
James Simpson (G) | 0/4 Wins | ||||
This leads to an overall preference ranking of:
- Montroll – defeats all candidates below, including Kiss (4,064 to 3,476)
- Kiss – defeats all candidates below, including Wright (4,313 to 4,061)
- Wright – defeats all candidates below, including Smith (3,971 to 3,793)
- Smith – defeats Simpson (5,570 to 721) and the write-in candidates
Montroll was therefore preferred over Kiss by 54% of voters, preferred over Wright by 56% of voters, over Smith by 60%, and over Simpson by 91% of voters.[25][5]
Hypothetical results under various voting systems
Because all ballots were fully released (a rare event in instant-runoff voting, as this compromises the secret ballot), it is possible to reconstruct Wright would have won under plurality. Kiss won under IRV and would have won under a two-round vote or a traditional nonpartisan blanket primary.
Montroll, being the beats-all winner, would have won if the ballots were counted using ranked pairs (or any other Condorcet method).[20]
Analyses suggested Montroll would also have won under most rated voting methods, including score voting, approval voting, majority judgment, or STAR voting, though this is not certain.[20]
Effect on IRV in Burlington
There was post-election controversy regarding the IRV method, and in 2010 a citizen's initiative resulted in the repeal of IRV in Burlington.[26] The initially "stagnant" repeal campaign drew renewed interest as Kiss became embroiled in a series of controversies.[27] In December 2009, a group called "One Person, One Vote", made up of Republicans and Democrats unhappy with the election outcome,[14] held a press conference to announce that they had collected enough signatures for an initiative to repeal IRV.[28] According to a local columnist, the vote was a referendum on Kiss's mayoralty; Kiss had allegedly become a "lame duck" because of a scandal relating to Burlington Telecom and other local issues.[14] However, in an interview with Vermont Public Radio, Kiss disputed that claim,[29] and those gathering signatures for the repeal stated that it was specifically a rejection of IRV itself.[14]
The IRV repeal initiative in March 2010 won 52% to 48%. It earned a majority of the vote in only two of the city's seven wards, but the vote in those 2009 strongholds for Kurt Wright was lopsided against IRV.[6][7][8] Republican Governor Jim Douglas signed the repeal into law in April 2010, saying "Voting ought to be transparent and easy to understand, and affects the will of the voters in a direct way. I'm glad the city has agreed to a more traditional process."[27]
The repeal reverted the system back to a 40% rule that requires a top-two runoff if no candidate exceeds 40% of the vote. Had the 2009 election occurred under these rules, Kiss and Wright would have advanced to the runoff. If the same voters had participated in the runoff as in the first election and not changed their preferences, Kiss would have won the runoff.[30]
The following decade saw continuing controversy about voting methods in Burlington. In 2011, for example, an initiative effort to increase the winning threshold from the 40% plurality to a 50% majority failed by 58.5% to 41.5%,[31] while in 2019, instant-runoff voting was once again proposed for Burlington by Councilor Jack Hanson but went unapproved by the Charter Change Committee for the March 2020 ballot.[32] One year later, in July 2020, the city council voted 6–5 in support of a measure to reinstate IRV, but it was vetoed by Mayor Miro Weinberger the following month.[33] In a city election, Burlington voters voted in favor by IRV by 64% to 36% (8914 to 4918) on March 2, 2021.[34][35][36] The charter change would require approval and enactment by the Vermont legislature, which did not act on it in 2021.[needs update]
References
- ^ a b 4. How did this change to IRV come about? Over 64% of Burlington voters voted in favor of the IRV Charter amendment in March 2005, and it went into effect on May 12, 2005, when the governor signed the ratification bill, H.505, which had been passed by both the House and Senate.
- ^ "Mayor Bob Kiss". City of Burlington. Archived from the original on November 29, 2007. Retrieved November 16, 2007.
- ^ a b Baruth, Philip (March 12, 2009). "Voting Paradoxes and Perverse Outcomes: Political Scientist Tony Gierzynski Lays Out A Case Against Instant Runoff Voting". Vermont Daily Briefing. Archived from the original on July 26, 2011.
- ^ "Point/Counterpoint: Terry Bouricius Attempts To Rip Professor Gierzynski A New One Over Instant Runoff Voting Controversy (Now With All New Gierzynski Update!)". Archived from the original on July 26, 2011. Retrieved December 30, 2010.
- ^ a b "Burlington Vermont 2009 IRV mayoral election". RangeVoting.org. Retrieved April 1, 2016.
- ^ a b "Burlington voters repeal IRV". Wcax.com. March 2, 2010. Archived from the original on April 9, 2016. Retrieved March 28, 2016.
- ^ a b "Instant run-off voting experiment ends in Burlington : Rutland Herald Online". Rutlandherald.com. April 27, 2010. Archived from the original on March 4, 2016. Retrieved April 1, 2016.
- ^ a b "Official Results Of 2010 Annual City Election" (PDF). City of Burlington. March 2, 2010.
- ^ Sneyd, Ross (March 16, 2006). "Vt. City Offers Instant Runoff in Race". The Guardian. Archived from the original on March 16, 2006. Retrieved June 3, 2018.
- ^ "ChoicePlus Pro 2009 Burlington Mayor Round Detail Report". July 25, 2011. Archived from the original on July 25, 2011. Retrieved January 3, 2018.
- ^ "ChoicePlus Pro 2009 Burlington Mayor Round 4 Report". March 3, 2009. Archived from the original on July 25, 2011. Retrieved February 28, 2011.
- ^ Etnier, Carl (March 6, 2009). "Instant runoff was success". Rutland Herald. Retrieved March 17, 2018.
- ^ a b Bouricius, Terry (March 17, 2009). "Response to Faulty Analysis of Burlington IRV Election". FairVote.org. Retrieved October 1, 2017.
successfully prevented the election of the candidate who would likely have won under plurality rules, but would have lost to either of the other top finishers in a runoff
- ^ a b c d e Totten, Shay. "Burlington Residents Seek Repeal of Instant Runoff Voting". Seven Days. Retrieved March 17, 2018.
We waited to bring in the signatures because we didn't want this to be about Kurt Wright losing after being ahead, or Andy Montroll who had more first and second place votes and didn't win. We wanted this to be about IRV.
- ^ a b Laatu, Juho; Smith, Warren D. (March 2009). "THE RANK-ORDER VOTES IN THE 2009 BURLINGTON MAYORAL ELECTION".
- ^ a b Lewyn, Michael (2012). "Two Cheers for Instant Runoff Voting". Phoenix L. Rev. 6: 117. SSRN 2276015.
election where Democratic candidate for mayor was Condorcet winner but finished third behind Republican and 'Progressive'
- ^ "Voter Paradox in the 2009 Burlington IRV Mayoral Race" (PDF).
Figure: Percent of voters who made a 1st choice, 2nd choice, etc., 2006 and 2009 Burlington mayoral election. 2 choices = 83.5%
- ^ Felsenthal, Dan S.; Tideman, Nicolaus (2014). "Interacting double monotonicity failure with direction of impact under five voting methods". Mathematical Social Sciences. 67: 57–66. doi:10.1016/j.mathsocsci.2013.08.001. ISSN 0165-4896.
A display of non-monotonicity under the Alternative Vote method was reported recently, for the March 2009 mayoral election in Burlington, Vermont.
- ^ a b Ornstein, Joseph T.; Norman, Robert Z. (October 1, 2014). "Frequency of monotonicity failure under Instant Runoff Voting: estimates based on a spatial model of elections". Public Choice. 161 (1–2): 1–9. doi:10.1007/s11127-013-0118-2. ISSN 0048-5829. S2CID 30833409.
Although the Democrat was the Condorcet winner (a majority of voters preferred him in all two way contests), he received the fewest first-place votes and so was eliminated ... 2009 mayoral election in Burlington, VT, which illustrates the key features of an upward monotonicity failure
- ^ a b c Gierzynski, Anthony; Hamilton, Wes; Smith, Warren D. (March 2009). "Burlington Vermont 2009 IRV mayoral election". RangeVoting.org. Retrieved October 1, 2017.
Montroll was favored over Republican Kurt Wright 56% to 44% ... and over Progressive Bob Kiss 54% to 46% ... In other words, in voting terminology, Montroll was a 'beats-all winner,' also called a 'Condorcet winner' ... However, in the IRV election, Montroll came in third! ... voters preferred Montroll over every other candidate ... Montroll is the most-approved
- ^ Bristow-Johnson, Robert (2023). "The failure of Instant Runoff to accomplish the purpose for which it was adopted: a case study from Burlington Vermont". Constitutional Political Economy. doi:10.1007/s10602-023-09393-1.
- ^ Ellenberg, Jordan (May 29, 2014). How Not to Be Wrong: The Power of Mathematical Thinking. Penguin. p. 385. ISBN 9780698163843.
a majority of voters liked the centrist candidate Montroll better than Kiss, and a majority of voters liked Montroll better than Wright ... yet Montroll was tossed in the first round.
- ^ Stensholt, Eivind (October 7, 2015). "What Happened in Burlington?". NHH Dept. Of Business and Management Science. Discussion Paper No. 2015/26. doi:10.2139/ssrn.2670462. hdl:11250/2356264. SSRN 2670462.
K was elected even though M was a clear Condorcet winner and W was a clear Plurality winner.
- ^ a b Dopp, Kathy (June 10, 2009). "IRV much worse than old runoffs". The Aspen Times. Retrieved March 17, 2018.
- ^ "IRV and Core Support". The Center for Election Science. Retrieved December 4, 2019.
- ^ Gierzynski, Tony (March 12, 2009). "Voting Paradoxes and Perverse Outcomes: Political Scientist Tony Gierzynski Lays Out A Case Against Instant Runoff Voting". Vermont Daily Briefing. Archived from the original on October 19, 2015. Retrieved September 27, 2017.
- ^ a b "IRV Repeal Signed into Law". Seven Days. April 26, 2010.
- ^ "One Person, One Vote Press Conference". CCTV Center for Media and Democracy. December 29, 2009. Retrieved April 10, 2018.
- ^ "Bob Kiss on IRV, Burlington Telecom and the Moran Plant – VPR Archive". vprarchive.vpr.net. Retrieved April 10, 2018.
- ^ "City of Burlington, Vermont | Instant Runoff Voting". September 28, 2011. Archived from the original on September 28, 2011. Retrieved April 8, 2018. – FAQ 5. for IRV: Under the old [pre-IRV] system a candidate could be elected with just over 40% of the vote, meaning a candidate could win even though seen as the last choice of nearly 60% of the voters.
- ^ "Annual City Election results" (PDF). City of Burlington. March 1, 2011.
- ^ "Ranked-Choice Voting Proposal Advances in Burlington". Seven Days. Retrieved December 4, 2019.
- ^ "Push for ranked-choice voting dies in Vermont's biggest city". The Fulcrum. August 10, 2020. Retrieved September 22, 2020.
- ^ Swann, Sara. "Ranked-choice voting poised to return to Vermont's largest city". The Fulcrum. Retrieved May 2, 2021.
- ^ Huntley, Katharine. "Voters approve all Burlington ballot issues". WCAX3. Retrieved May 2, 2021.
- ^ "Burlington, Vermont, Question 4, Ranked-Choice Voting Amendment (March 2021)". Ballotpedia. Retrieved July 24, 2021.
External links
- City's website
- Ballot data: 2009 Mayor Reports, see 2009 Burlington Mayor Final Piles Report.txt
- Comparative visualizations of IRV, Condorcet and Borda results.
