Governor Does Not Believe Vermonters Can Handle 1-2-3
April 9, 2008 Press Statement from Anthony Pollina on IRV Veto:
In his veto of the Instant Run off Voting bill (S.108) Governor Douglas made statements that are either misinformed or intentionally misleading.
Veto decisions may be based on opinion, but it is important to include facts in their official explanations. This veto message seems a deliberate effort to undermine public understanding of the proposal.
First, the Governor makes a statement that is nonsensical and completely misinformed when he says that elections with IRV, “cannot result in a candidate being the top choice of a majority of voters. It is mathematically impossible for the candidate chosen by the IRV process to receive a majority of first votes cast…”
It is hard to imagine the basis for this statement. Imagine the election for U.S. House in 2008 includes incumbent U.S. Representative Peter Welch and two challengers. The Governor says it is mathematically impossible for Welch to receive a majority of the first votes cast. According to his logic it would be “mathematically impossible” for Welch to receive 52% of the vote, one challenger to receive 38% and a second challenger to receive 10% of the vote. Throughout his many years in politics the Governor has said many things I disagree with but this is the strangest bit of logic I have encountered.
The Governor then shows a lack of understanding when he says IRV, “circumvents the fundamental democratic principle of one person, one vote… The authors of our Constitution applied this standard … to ensure that elections are in fact a clear choice.”
Putting aside the practical evidence to the contrary, consider that Michigan courts have already ruled IRV fully complies with the “one person, one vote” principle and gives equal weight to each voter. The judge’s decision said: “Under the [IRV system], no one person or voter has more than one effective vote for one office. No voter’s vote can be counted more than once for the same candidate. In the final analysis, no voter is given greater weight in his or her vote over the vote of another voter, ….the effect of a “[IRV] System” is like that of a runoff election. The form of majority preferential voting employed in the City of Ann Arbor’s election of its Mayor does not violate the one-man, one-vote mandate nor does it deprive anyone of equal protection rights under the Michigan or United States Constitutions.”
My opponent did sign a bill that allowed IRV in the City of Burlington, which used it without problems electing its mayor in 2006. Did the Governor believe it constitutional then but not now?
Douglas goes on to imply IRV undermines democracy saying; “voters should not be asked to cast their ballots based on a wide range of hypothetical, theoretical or imaginary outcomes,” and, “this system would undoubtedly lead to backroom deal making between candidates” …and “would erode public confidence in the process…cause a deterioration of our time tested, democratic and egalitarian electoral process. The current system has served the people of Vermont well for more than 200 years. There is no basis to make the democratically unsound change this bill proposes.
Again, he doesn’t have the facts right. Until 1940 Vermont had a majority requirement. If nobody prevailed we held a whole new election, which sometimes left us without a voice in Congress while voters went to the polls again. IRV honors this Vermont tradition with a modern solution that is workable, practical and easy to understand.
The Governor may be opposed to encouraging citizen participation - that is his prerogative. But I would hope he would show enough respect for the public process to give logical reasons for his opposition, not stand behind creative fiction.
# # #
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: April 9, 2008
CONTACT: Meg Brook - 802-343-2604