On town meeting day 2006, Burlington became the first city in Vermont to elect its mayor with a new system of voting called Instant Runoff Voting (IRV).

And the system worked flawlessly in Burlington:

• The winning candidate was supported by a majority of voters;
• More than 64% of voters preferred IRV to the old voting system;
• More than 90% of voters thought the system was clear and understood how to vote.

IRV has many other benefits including giving voters a wider range of choices, eliminating the spoiler factor, saving taxpayer money, and decreasing negative campaigning. VPIRG supports making IRV the voting system for all statewide elections.

How it works:

IRV allows citizens to vote for candidates by ranking them in order of their preference. Voters mark their ballot by ranking candidates inn order of preference: first, second, third, and so on. To see an animated demonstration of how IRV works, click here.

If no candidate wins a majority of support in the first round, an “instant runoff” takes place. The candidates with the fewest first preference votes are eliminated from race and the second preferences are tallied so that the candidate who has the support of a majority of voters wins the election.

In Burlington's case, after the first round of counting, no candidate garnered the required majority to win outright. Progressive candidate Bob Kiss received 39% of first choices, Democrat Hinda Miller 31%, and Republican Kevin Curley 26%. At this point an instant runoff kicked in. Curley and two other independent candidates were eliminated and their supporters' second choices counted. This gave Kiss enough votes to cross the majority threshold and win the race.

It's a simple, common-sense reform that can greatly improve our democratic process.

Election Day Registration

The concept is simple, really. If more people voted, the outcome of elections would represent more of us.

In 2004, 68% of Vermonters turned our to vote. However, that means that more than 150,000 eligible Vermonters were still left out of the process. By comparison, the difference between the winning and second place candidate for Governor was only 64,213 votes.

In Vermont as in other states, the problem of low voter turnout is particular severe among the 18-24 year-old age group.  In the 2002 elections just 13% of young people in Vermont turned out to the polls.  This was the second lowest youth voter turnout in the country.

Election Day Registration

One simple way to get more voters involved is to allow Vermonters to register to vote on election day, at their polling place. This system, called Election Day Registration (EDR), means that even if you've just remembered an election, just moved, or just gotten excited about a candidate or issue, you can be part of the process.

Under EDR, you show up at your polling place, provide proof that you live in the voting district, and are allowed to vote. Since you have to present proof of your identification and residence, the system is every bit as secure as our current system, you just don't have to wait to an arbitrary number of weeks between registration and voting.

In eight other states, voters are allowed to register to vote on election day. Studies have shown that these states have the highest voter participation rates in the country.  For instance, in the last election, Maine and New Hampshire -- two nearby states with Same Day Registration -- were among the top four states in the nation for voter turnout with 75.3% and 71.9% turnout respectively.

Campaign Finance Reform

VPIRG staff demonstrate in support of Act 64 in the late 1990s. Much of the law was struck down by the supreme court this summer.

A divided U.S. Supreme Court struck down much of Vermont’s landmark campaign finance reform law as the election season rolled into high gear. Passed in 1997 Act 64 was a landmark campaign finance reform law that immediately made the Green Mountain State a national leader in the effort to reduce the influence of big money in politics. Vermont had been the first and only state to set limits on what candidates could spend in a race. The law also had included the nation’s lowest limits on campaign contributions.

Though these contribution and spending limits were ruled unconstitutional in a 6-3 decision, Vermont’s limited system of public financing remains intact.

“Vermont’s law offered a life-line to a campaign finance system drowning in cash and awash in special interest influence,” said VPIRG’s Paul Burns. “The Court missed a truly historic opportunity to improve our elections.”

The 2006 state and federal elections in Vermont provided ample evidence on the ongoing problem. Vermonters witnessed some of the most negative and expensive races in state history. The Senate race alone cost more than $14 million, roughly $35 per vote.

VPIRG is pushing for new limits on contributions and a more comprehensive public financing system so that average Vermonters have a stronger voice in the elections process. Other reforms that VPIRG is backing in the 2007 legislative session include a bill to allow Election Day Registration and a plan for Instant Runoff Voting so that we can be sure winning candidates have the support of a majority of the voters.