Vermont General Election 2024: Presidential Election

President and Vice President has seven candidates, a far cry from the twenty-one candidates four years ago.  

Claudia de la Cruz and Karina Garcia, the Socialism and Liberation party.  The first item on their platform page states, "The 100 largest corporations in America should be seized from their billionaire owners and turned into public property – owned by the working class that created their vast wealth in the first place."  For those who are confused, *this* is what socialism actually looks like.  It's a bold platform, but...

Rachele Fruit and Dennis Richter, Socialist Workers party.  They appear to not have a campaign website.  There are a few articles about Rachele Fruit, including one from February when Margaret Trowe was her running mate, but nothing that gives a sense of a campaign platform.  No thank you.

Kamala Harris and Tim Walz, Democratic party.  Their site includes 80 pages of platform initiatives (PDF, or you can read on the website).  Agree with it or not, but don't pretend she doesn't have any policies.

Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. and Nicole Shanahan, We the People party.  They were too late in dropping out of the race to be removed from the VT ballot.  RFKJr's website claims Biden cut his Secret Service protection in retaliation for endorsing Trump, but he's been lying about this for over a year.  

Chase Oliver and Mike Ter Maat, Libertarian party.  They have a platform page that lays out libertarian ideals, without much detail on implementation.

Donald Trump and JD Vance, Republican party.  Right now (Sunday, Oct 20) when I go to donaldjtrump.com, that address redirects to https://secure.winred.com/trump-national-committee-jfc/lp-website-fry-cook.  If I go direclty to the URL of a subpage of their campaign site, like https://www.donaldjtrump.com/platform, I remain on the donaldjtrump.com domain.  The redirect feels really weird for a major campaign; at first I thought someone had hacked the main site and redirected to a joke page, but Trump really did "work" at McD's today.  At any rate, the "official" RNC platform is 16 pages, or 1/5 the size of Harris's.  Project 2025 is considerably larger, but we are supposed to believe that it's not the plan for Trump's second term.

Cornel West and Melina Abdullah, Peace and Justice party.  They have a platform page centered around justice; there is considerably more detail here than on the Libertarian platform.

Vermont General Election 2024: Statewide Elections

The primaries are over, and it's on to the general election.  Every statewide race is contested, but it's unclear if any are competitive...

Attorney General has three candidates:

• Charity Clark is the Democratic candidate and the current AG, elected two years ago.  She worked in the AG's office for eight years prior, so she is the most experienced candidate.  Her candidate site doesn't list any positions.  The About page for the AG office states the Vision as "A Vermont where the public interest and the natural environment are protected by a just and effective state government."  WCAX's reporting on the AG race says "she’s focused on online safety protections for kids, a growing concern with artificial intelligence, and addressing what she calls a youth vaping crisis."  The VTDigger profile has more on PCBs, domestic violence, and gun safety.  I would like to see more focus on the opiod epidemic, as that is a root cause of the current public safety concerns in Vermont.
• Kevin Gustafson is the Green Mountain Peace and Justice candidate.  He has no campaign site, the Q&A with 7 Days links to the party's website, which doesn't mention he is a candidate.
• Ture Nelson is the Republican candidate.  His positions mirror his answers to VTDigger's profile questions, and are concerning.  His focus seems to be on investigating whether public servants are "doing their jobs", with no mention of the opioid epidemic.  

Auditor of Accounts has two candidates:

• Doug Hoffer is the Democratic candidate and the incumbent with 12 years of service.  He has been excellent in the position, but is 72.  My one question for him is whether he has a successor trained up to take over when it's time for him to retire.
• H. Brooke Paige runs for multiple state positions every election cycle.  He is not a serious candidate, and it's difficult to take seriously his evidence-free accusations that Hoffer isn't doing his job.   

Secretary of State has two candidates:

• Sarah Copeland Hanzas, the Democratic candidate and current secretary.  I like that the office has been working on civic engagement.  I'm not sure it should be the highest priority, but I also can't offer an alternative highest priority.
• H. Brooke Paige, the Republican candidate, who believes vote-by-mail is unconstitutional and repealing it is his top priority.  Again, not a serious candidate, and it's sad the Republican party can't do better.

State Treasurer has two candidates:

• Joshua Bechhoefer is the Republican candidate.  He does not appear to have a campaign website.  His top priority, if elected, is to provide "more options for pensions where possible" without any further detail.  That sounds like dismantling the pension system in favor of 401k's to me, and not a good idea.  
• Mike Pieciak, the Democratic candidate and current treasurer.  His top priority is housing, which the state has invested in during his term.  Homelessness is another root cause of the current public safety concerns in Vermont, so it makes sense to me that encouraging housing growth is a focus for the Treasurer.

Lieutenant Governor has three candidates.  This is the only race that seems remotely competitive.

• Ian Diamondstone is the Vermont Peace and Justice candidate.  Like Kevin Gustafson, he appears to have no campaign website, and his VTDigger profile, which he did not bother to provide answers to, points to the party website, which does not mention he is a candidate.  I don't understand the purpose of running if one isn't going to do the bare minimum of campaigning.
• John Rodgers is a former Democratic senator and representative from the Northeast Kingdom, who switched parties this year to be the Republican candidate.
• David Zuckerman is the Democratic candidate and current Lt Governor.  I am a little concerned that he doesn't seem to have the full support of his party: he faced a challenger who took 36% of the vote in the primary, and a story about being reprimanded by the VT House Speaker was run in the leadup to that primary election.

There is video of a debate between Rodgers and Zuckerman.  Starts off very friendly and gets a little heated when the candidates start to ask each other questions.  There isn't a lot that separates the two.

Governor has five candidates:

• Esther Charlestin is the Democratic candidate.  Her policy page is focused on three issues and has concrete proposals.  I would like to see a broader platform from a gubernatorial candidate.  I hope, after the election, she is able to continue to advocate for these proposals.
• June Goodband is the Vermont Peace and Justice candidate.  She has a full and thoughtful platform.  I am concerned that she has no political experience and is starting by seeking the governorship.
• Kevin Hoyt is an Independent candidate who has been arrested and charged with stalking and harassment.  He does not have a campaign website.  Some of his answers to the VTDigger questions are ... not worthy of a gubernatorial candidate. 
• Eli "Poa" Mutino is an Independent candidate.  His issues page highlights three important issues, but there are no concrete proposals, and the governor needs to have a broader view.  
• Phil Scott is the Republican candidate and sitting governor.  His website doesn't appear to contain any policy or position statements.  He did not bother to fill out the VTDigger profile.  He will handily win another term. 

There is video of a debate between Charlestin and Scott.  Watching this, I was struck by Scott's dismissal of the work done in the state legislature, arguing for a shorter legislative session with the logic, "they pass most of the bills in the last week."  He was a state senator for 10 years; he should know better.

Three possible local headlines for tomorrow

"Kurt Wright wins narrow victory; Hinda Miller admits maybe IRV wasn't such a bad thing"**


"Miro Weinberger wins narrow victory; Republicans blame IRV"


"Wanda Hines wins miracle victory; God smiles on the People's Republic"***




** Hinda Miller lost the 2006 election for mayor; even though she trailed eventual winner Bob Kiss in votes after the first round and therefore was entirely likely to have lost a traditional runoff, she blamed her loss on IRV because Republican Kevin Curley mind-controlled his supporters into casting their second-choice votes for Progressive Kiss.  I was ashamed to have had Miller on my ballot at all after that display of poor sportsmanship.


*** This is not an endorsement of Wanda Hines by myself (or God), but merely an observation that she is the candidate closest to the Progressive values that have defined the People's Republic of Burlington for the last 30 years.  The global economic meltdown has helped kill the People's Republic, and whoever we elect is going to have to cut budget to the bone.

Voting 3rd Party != Abstentionism (VT statewide officers edition)

A recent post at Green Mountain Daily argues that "a vote for a third party candidate this time around is the same as abstentionism."  That depends.  If you believe that, in the case no candidate receives a majority of popular vote, the General Assembly will elect the Republican or Democrat candidate that you prefer, then a vote for a third party candidate is in effect a vote for your preferred major party candidate.  Plus, if you truly prefer a third party candidate, you effectively get to exercise a limited sort of IRV.

Oh, the delicious irony!

The Burlington Free Press reported Friday, January 22 on the potential internal conflict in the local Republican party.  Kurt Wright and Kevin Curley, both former mayoral candidates, may be jostling for position against Russ Ellis, and part of the concern is that if both run, they could split the Republican vote and Ellis would win re-election in Ward 4.  Now... if the election of City councilors used instant runoff (IRV), as in the mayoral election, Wright and Curley could both run without unduly harming each other.  They would, in fact, likely help one another because Republicans who would come out to vote for Wright but not Curley, or Curley or not Wright, would all come out to rank "their" candidate first, and then likely prefer the other Republican to Ellis.  Instead, one or the other will likely step down for the good of the party's chances to take the seat, and so instead of letting the voters of Ward 4 directly choose between Ellis, Wright, and Curley, a lack of IRV at the the City councilor level (with a generous dollop of party politics) will remove Curley or Wright, and Ward 4 will lose for not having a wider array of candidates to choose from.


The irony here, of course, is that Wright is an important voice in the effort to repeal IRV in the mayoral election. We get what we ask for: if we repeal IRV, we the voters will have *less* direct say in choosing our representatives, since the "old" system strongly discourages multiple potential candidates from the same party from running simultaneously. I, for one, will be voting to keep IRV.

Just don't do anything to void the warranty on your body

Great post at http://tauntermedia.com/2009/07/28/unconscionable-math/

This is why I'm interested in an experiment where health insurance is really insurance -- you pay a premium against acquiring some chronic condition -- and for the rest to be covered by HSAs. Now, according to the post, the vast majority of people aren't using as much basic health maintenance as they're paying in premiums. I do get the vague impression from other sources that there is a sentiment that if we simply gave the average Joe the money they're paying in premiums, they wouldn't spend it on basic health maintenance. If we really can't trust people to take care of themselves, we could mandate that everyone put enough money into their HSAs to cover basic health maintenance.

The question is whether to let individuals choose for themselves or try to nudge them into doing the "right" thing... though actually, major medical problems should be covered by the actual insurance, but the insurance company wouldn't pay out unless you've been getting regular checkups, where "major medical" and "regular" are defined in the insurance policy. Just like if you make a homeowner's claim because the roof caved in and the insurance company rejects it because the tiles haven't been replaced in 40 years.

You go, VT legislature

http://www.burlingtonfreepress.com/article/20090407/NEWS03/90407016

An open letter to Governor Douglas regarding his stance on the gay marriage bill

Dear Governor Douglas,

You are conflating the secular government's need to track family units, or households, for tax and social benefits purposes with religious unions, which in certain churches are restricted to the joining of a single man and single woman.  Our society already acknowledges this difference in the case of divorcees.  The secular government currently and correctly recognizes family units in which the adults are divorced from a prior union, while certain churches do not officially recognize such unions within their congregations.  There is no reason why the secular government should not likewise recognize a family unit in which the adults are of the same sex, and let specific religions determine for themselves whether to recognize such unions within their congregations.  This is precisely why we have a separation of church and state, and it is shameful that you, as a good Republican, should forget this and choose to elevate the beliefs of certain religions over those of others in an issue that should solely matter to the secular government in purely a secular way.

Sincerely,

Alex Reutter

Ward 7, Burlington VT

City Council Runoff

Because I live in Burlington's Ward 7, I got to vote again for City Councilor because the March 3 election was not decisive.  As I walked into the building formerly known as the Gosse Court Armory this morning with my spouse and two children (ages 2 and 5, on our way to work, day care, and school, respectively), one of the candidates asked me what I thought of IRV.  My response was that if we had IRV for all elections, I wouldn't have to be there this morning.  To further elaborate: we wouldn't have to waste the taxpayer time and money that goes into having a runoff election if we had IRV for all city elections.  IRV does not mean you get "multiple" votes, any more than a person who voted for Ellie Blais in the March 3 election gets "multiple" votes by participating in the March 24 runoff.  IRV does mean that we make the most efficient use of taxpayer time and funds by having a single election date, and to be against IRV is to be against "holding the line" on City spending.  

To candidates Vincent Dober and Eli Lesser-Goldsmith: I thank you both for running for City Council, and ask the winner to work with your fellow Councilors to get an item on next year's Town Meeting ballot so that IRV is used for all City elections.  Get it done, and you've got my vote in the next election.

Why I love IRV

The Burlington Mayoral race is determined by IRV.  Today, I received an automated call asking me to vote for a particular candidate, and if he wasn't my first choice, to please rank him second on the ballot.  The parties are starting to catch on!

How government can "safely" invest in the venture market?

Tom Evslin recently touched on the dangers of government dumping money in the venture market, which is something he's done before and will no doubt do again, but it's really hard to stop the government from spending money, so I wonder if it might be easier to at least try to spend it (more) wisely.  For example, instead of saying, "we're going to spend $30 billion on funding a green energy alternative, and we choose to spend it on so-and-so companies that work on the such-and-such alternative" the government could instead set up an X prize or Netflix prize-style contest that sets up the parameters of a problem to be solved (generate so much electricity at such-and-such a cost) and allows individual business to figure out the solution to the problem.  

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!"

Taking out the trash

A recent article in Seven Days (the local "indie" paper) reported on the debate over a bill that would add a dollar to the cost of each tire sold in Vermont, which would then go towards the costs of collection and disposal. An opponent of the bill is quoted as complaining about why tires are singled out. “It’s computer stuff, couches, TVs, shopping carts, all kinds of things. Do we now tax a dollar on every TV that’s sold . . . on and on? Or do we try to enforce the current laws?”

Well, actually, putting the costs of collection and disposal up front, when the consumer buys the item, and providing "free" disposal when the consumer wants to throw the item out, makes a whole lot more sense than collecting fees at disposal time and spending money trying to enforce largely unenforceable laws against illegal dumping. Simply take away the "rational" incentive to illegally dump (boy, it's expensive for me to properly dispose of these tires/tvs/etc; I'm just gonna dump 'em in the river/woods and no one will know the difference), and you'll just be left with the vandals (heh-heh, wouldn't it be cool to push a shopping cart down this hill?) to try to catch and prosecute.

The challenge of creating a system in which the costs of collection and disposal are put up front (without creating a more horrible bureaucracy) is left as an exercise to the reader; given the existence of state sales taxes, the collection aspect isn't particularly important. Instead focus on the problems of proper assignment of the cost of disposal for items -- clearly a tire costs more to dispose of than a plastic potato chip bag, but how exactly should you assign costs? (a straight percentage might work; then again, a $40 dvd player probably costs as much to properly dispose of as a $300 one, and a lot more to dispose of than the packaging for $40 worth of organic green tea) -- and the problem of out-of-state and online purchases (solve this latter problem, and you've also solved a similar problem for sales taxes... good luck).