2009 Burlington mayoral election

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.

• Bob Kiss (P), incumbent mayor (elected in 2006) seeking second term
• Kurt Wright (R), then-current City Councilor and State Representative
• 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^{[citation needed]}

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).

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%	N	Eliminated
Dan Smith	Independent	1,306	14.5%	14.5%	N	Eliminated
James Simpson	Green	35	0.4%	0.4%	N	Eliminated
Write-in		40	0.4%	0.4%	N	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%

FairVote touted the 2009 election as one of its major success stories, with IRV helping the city avoid the cost of a traditional runoff (which would not have affected the results). They also argued IRV prevented a spoiler effect that would have occurred under plurality.^[12] Later analyses showed the race was still spoiled, however, with Wright acting as a spoiler pulling moderate votes from Montroll, who otherwise would have been able to defeat Kiss in a one-on-one race.^[13][14]

FairVote also claimed the election as a success story because 99.9% of voters were able to fill out at least one preference on their ranked-choice ballot.^[12] Other election observers questioned this interpretation, after analyses showed 16% of voters cast plurality-style ballots for only one candidate^[15] and 7% of ballots did not rank either of the candidates in the last round, leaving them unrepresented.^[13][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).^[16][17]

Several electoral reform advocates branded the election a failure after Kiss was elected, despite 54% of voters voting for Montroll over Kiss,^[18][19] violating the principle of majority rule.^[14][20][21]

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:

1. Montroll – defeats all candidates below, including Kiss (4,064 to 3,476)
2. Kiss – defeats all candidates below, including Wright (4,313 to 4,061)
3. Wright – defeats all candidates below, including Smith (3,971 to 3,793)
4. 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.^[5][22]

Because all ballots were fully released, it is possible to reconstruct the winners under other voting methods. While 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 Condorcet winner, would have won if the ballots were counted using ranked pairs (or any other Condorcet method).^[23] Analyses suggested Montroll also would have won under most rated voting methods, including score voting, approval voting, majority judgment, or STAR voting.^{[citation needed]}

Repeal of RCV

2 March 2010
Results
Choice Votes % Yes 3,972 51.98% No 3,669 48.02% Valid votes 7,641 100.00% Invalid or blank votes 0 0.00% Total votes 7,641 100.00%

There was post-election controversy regarding the IRV method, and in March 2010 a citizen's initiative resulted in the repeal of IRV in Burlington.^[24] The initially "stagnant" repeal campaign drew renewed interest as Kiss became embroiled in a series of controversies.^[25] In December 2009, a group called "One Person, One Vote", made up of Republicans and Democrats unhappy with the election outcome, held a press conference to announce that they had collected enough signatures for an initiative to repeal IRV.^[26][27] 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.^[26] However, in an interview with Vermont Public Radio, Kiss disputed that claim,^[28] and those gathering signatures for the repeal stated that it was specifically a rejection of IRV itself.^[26]

Locals argued the system was convoluted,^[26] turned the 2009 election into a "gambling game" by disqualifying Montroll for having won too many votes,^[17][29] and "eliminated the most popular moderate candidate and elected an extremist".^[29]

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."^[25]

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] The council then amended the measure to apply only to the council itself, which the Mayor accepted, and on March 2, 2021, Burlington voters voted in favor of IRV for its city council by 64% to 36% (8,914 to 4,918).^[34][35][36] The charter change required approval by the Vermont legislature, which enacted it in May of 2022, and which the governor allowed to become law without his signature.^[37] The council in September 2022, the voters in March 2023, and the legislature in May 2023 approved the expansion of use of IRV for mayor, school commissioners, and ward election officers, with first use in March 2024.^[38][39][40]

• Center squeeze

• City's website
• Ballot data: 2009 Mayor Reports, see 2009 Burlington Mayor Final Piles Report.txt
• Comparative visualizations of IRV, Condorcet and Borda results.