Lawmakers will try to override vetoes

April 14, 2008

MONTPELIER — The Legislature will soon decide if two bills should become law even though they were rejected by Gov. James Douglas.

Since legislators would like to have those veto override votes completed before the end of the session, slated for early May, the state Senate may begin that process as early as this week.

One of the bills, establishing campaign-finance limits, is likely to gain most of the attention.
It is much less likely that the other, creating an instant-runoff voting system for Congressional elections in Vermont, would win the two-thirds majority in both the Senate and the House needed to override a veto.

The Vermont Public Interest Research Group, which has been a major force behind the campaign finance bill, has taken aim at Douglas' message on that veto.

In his veto message Douglas said the bill, by limiting how much money political parties can give to their candidates, protects incumbents.

"The proposed party contribution limits extend unfair political protection to incumbents by establishing an obstacle for challengers," Douglas said.

Not really, according to VPIRG. During the 2002, 2004 and 2006 election cycles — when Vermont's very strict campaign limits of $200 were in place — incumbent state House members were more likely to lose their seats than they have been in the years before or afterward, according to the group's research.

Read full article

IRV protects the will of the voters

May 12, 2007
Letter to the Editor

Several years ago I would have vehemently argued against Instant Runoff Voting, but today I am of the opposite view. Three things changed my mind: the 2002 lieutenant governor's race where the winner received only about 42 percent of the vote; the avoidance of substantive issue coverage by the media and many politicians; and finally Burlington's successful use of IRV in their mayoral election just last year. And now I've been given a fourth reason thanks to Mr. Leader ("Instant runoff voting is a travesty," letters, May 7).

Mr. Leader uses an example with "45 percent Republican, 25 percent [Democratic], and 30 percent 'Out There.'" What he misses is with those numbers it's the Democratic politician who has become the "out there" candidate, and the previously "out there" has obviously become much more mainstream. This is a salutary effect of IRV as it allows the will of the people to guide the political process rather than the process being guided by the offers of the current established parties.

I'm a values/issues voter. I've done volunteer work for the Vermont Republican Party, and I've tried working with the Vermont Democratic Party. I've spent time with the Vermont Grassroots Party, the Vermont Green Party, and I've driven a Progressive candidate around. Nowadays I primarily vote other than Democrat or Republican from experience, and not, as Mr. Leader would label me, out of reflex. As I stated at the beginning of this paragraph: I'm a values/issues voter.

IRV is not intended to protect the political parties of any color: red, blue, green, orange or whatnot. IRV is intended to protect the will of the voters, and the fine example Mr. Leader provided is yet one more reason to support IRV.

Rama O.A. Schneider
Williamstown