Political Shenanigans (VT 2008 November vote edition)

In the latest North Avenue News, Kurt Wright's legislative report contains his concerns over the possibility that this year's gubernatorial race might be decided by the legislature.  He writes:

I hope during the next session a constitutional amendment process is started that changes the way we elect the Governor and Lieutenant Governor if no candidate receives over 50% of the vote: The way the system is currently set up, if no candidate gets a majority then the Legislature decides the race.  This invites the potential for a political decision to be made by the General Assembly where the loser wins!

This is not true, for according to the Constitution of Vermont (see § 47. [Election of governor, lieutenant-governor and treasurer]), there is no winner if no candidate has received the majority of the popular vote.  If the race goes to the General Assembly, they consider the top three vote getters, so the only "losers" at that point are candidates outside the top three. 

Now, if Kurt disagrees with the State Constitution, that's his right, so let's see what else he has to say in the legislative report:

You may not think it would happen but if you listen to the answers being given by an awful lot of candidates this year (check out the Burlington Free Press Legislative surveys) you will see what I mean. One candidate said this: “I’ll vote for the most qualified candidate--that is if she doesn’t win it outright.” Others have said they will use their own personal form of instant runoff voting to determine who would have won if we had IRV in place for this election. This means they will try, on their own, to figure out how you would have cast your second place vote if you had one. In my opinion that is outrageous! This is an attempt to install their own personal choice for Governor, even if they lost— and perhaps lost by a significant margin.

This type of political shenanigans should not be possible—especially by secret ballot vote, as it is now. Let’s begin the process to change this system.  It must begin in the Senate, so we will have to start calling our Chittenden County Senators after the election and try to persuade them to get the ball rolling on this much needed change.

I have to agree that I wouldn't want to vote for a legislative candidate who was laying on the BS about using a "personal form of IRV" to determine who to vote for if the gubernatorial vote came to the legislature; however, I have no problems with a legislator who says “I’ll vote for the most qualified candidate--that is if she doesn’t win it outright.”  Outside of needing to consider the top three vote-getters, the Constitution places no restrictions on who the legislature can vote for, so voting for the candidate who did not take the plurality of the vote is not political shenanigans.  To me, suggesting that voting according to the current rules laid down by the Constitution of Vermont is "political shenanigans" is "political shenanigans".  

Also note that Kurt doesn't provide a suggestion as to how the vote should be conducted -- being a cynic, I thought that perhaps this entire bit was simply a ploy to discourage Democrats from voting for Symington if the vote goes to the legislature, so I asked him for his opinion, and Rep. Wright responded:

Actually in this instance I think there are a number of proposals that would be better than the one we have.  I would favor the one we had in Burlington--top vote getter wins with a threshold number such as 40 % that has to be passed.  Either that or just top vote getter wins.  IRV would also be preferable to a system that has one side openly talking about installing the loser. Hanging chads in Florida?  Imagine the Vermont Legislature installing the loser by secret ballot vote!!  In this case any of these proposals would be better.

Okay, I'm glad that he has actual opinions about what could be institutued, and can respect the general concerns about the process (especially the secret ballot), though as noted above, he is incorrect in thinking that the Legislature could install "the loser" as governor.  

UPDATE: Kurt writes, concerning my concern in thinking that the Legislature could install "the loser" as governor:

Technically correct of course.  But in the minds of most Vermonters the person with the most votes has won, or should have---and if the Legislature voted to install a candidate that finished 8-10 or 20 points behind... believe me there would be a backlash the next election and the understandable reaction would be that the "loser" had won, despite all techncal definitions to the contrary. 

Very true, though I would still prefer our leaders to be technically correct where possible.  One can express the opinion that the current process can be improved without resorting to inflammatory rhetoric like "This invites the potential for a political decision to be made by the General Assembly where the loser wins!"