2009 Burlington mayoral election: Difference between revisions
Content added Content deleted
(→Pairwise results: fixed a couple of places where I'd left only the initials in the table) |
(Copied and adapted the second table currently in w:2009 Burlington mayoral election (version: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2009_Burlington_mayoral_election&oldid=1053139964 )) |
||
Line 2: | Line 2: | ||
In March 2009, the city of [[w:Burlington,_Vermont|Burlington, Vermont]] held a mayoral election. [[Vermont Progressive Party]] candidate Bob Kiss was elected, despite a 54% majority of voters expressing a preference for [[Democratic Party]] candidate Andy Montroll over Kiss.<ref name=":1">{{Cite web|url=http://scorevoting.net/Burlington.html|title=Burlington Vermont 2009 IRV mayoral election|last=Gierzynski|first=Anthony|last2=Hamilton|first2=Wes|date=March 2009|website=RangeVoting.org|archive-url=|archive-date=|dead-url=|access-date=1 October 2017|quote=Montroll was favored over Republican Kurt Wright 56% to 44% ... and over Progressive Bob Kiss 54% to 46% ... In other words, in voting terminology, Montroll was a 'beats-all winner,' also called a 'Condorcet winner' ... However, in the IRV election, Montroll came in third! ... voters preferred Montroll over every other candidate ... Montroll is the most-approved|last3=Smith|first3=Warren D.}}</ref><ref name=":8">{{Cite journal|last=Ornstein|first=Joseph T.|last2=Norman|first2=Robert Z.|date=2014-10-01|title=Frequency of monotonicity failure under Instant Runoff Voting: estimates based on a spatial model of elections|journal=Public Choice|language=en|volume=161|issue=1–2|pages=1–9|doi=10.1007/s11127-013-0118-2|issn=0048-5829|quote=Although the Democrat was the Condorcet winner (a majority of voters preferred him in all two way contests), he received the fewest first-place votes and so was eliminated ... 2009 mayoral election in Burlington, VT, which illustrates the key features of an upward monotonicity failure}}</ref><ref>{{Cite journal|last=Lewyn|first=Michael|date=2012|title=Two Cheers for Instant Runoff Voting|url=|journal=Phoenix L. Rev.|language=en|volume=6|page=117|pages=|ssrn=2276015|quote=election where Democratic candidate for mayor was Condorcet winner but finished third behind Republican and 'Progressive'|via=}}</ref> As a result of the surprise outcome of the election, Burlington voters [[w:Instant-runoff_voting_in_the_United_States#2010_Burlington_repeal|narrowly voted to repeal IRV]], reverting to their [[Runoff voting|prior system of holding a runoff]] if no candidate receives over 40% of the vote. |
In March 2009, the city of [[w:Burlington,_Vermont|Burlington, Vermont]] held a mayoral election. [[Vermont Progressive Party]] candidate Bob Kiss was elected, despite a 54% majority of voters expressing a preference for [[Democratic Party]] candidate Andy Montroll over Kiss.<ref name=":1">{{Cite web|url=http://scorevoting.net/Burlington.html|title=Burlington Vermont 2009 IRV mayoral election|last=Gierzynski|first=Anthony|last2=Hamilton|first2=Wes|date=March 2009|website=RangeVoting.org|archive-url=|archive-date=|dead-url=|access-date=1 October 2017|quote=Montroll was favored over Republican Kurt Wright 56% to 44% ... and over Progressive Bob Kiss 54% to 46% ... In other words, in voting terminology, Montroll was a 'beats-all winner,' also called a 'Condorcet winner' ... However, in the IRV election, Montroll came in third! ... voters preferred Montroll over every other candidate ... Montroll is the most-approved|last3=Smith|first3=Warren D.}}</ref><ref name=":8">{{Cite journal|last=Ornstein|first=Joseph T.|last2=Norman|first2=Robert Z.|date=2014-10-01|title=Frequency of monotonicity failure under Instant Runoff Voting: estimates based on a spatial model of elections|journal=Public Choice|language=en|volume=161|issue=1–2|pages=1–9|doi=10.1007/s11127-013-0118-2|issn=0048-5829|quote=Although the Democrat was the Condorcet winner (a majority of voters preferred him in all two way contests), he received the fewest first-place votes and so was eliminated ... 2009 mayoral election in Burlington, VT, which illustrates the key features of an upward monotonicity failure}}</ref><ref>{{Cite journal|last=Lewyn|first=Michael|date=2012|title=Two Cheers for Instant Runoff Voting|url=|journal=Phoenix L. Rev.|language=en|volume=6|page=117|pages=|ssrn=2276015|quote=election where Democratic candidate for mayor was Condorcet winner but finished third behind Republican and 'Progressive'|via=}}</ref> As a result of the surprise outcome of the election, Burlington voters [[w:Instant-runoff_voting_in_the_United_States#2010_Burlington_repeal|narrowly voted to repeal IRV]], reverting to their [[Runoff voting|prior system of holding a runoff]] if no candidate receives over 40% of the vote. |
||
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 receiving 48.0% in the final round (which made up 51.5% of the ballots which had not been exhausted), defeating final challenger [[Kurt Wright]] (who received more votes than Kiss in the earlier rounds, but only received 45.2% in the final round). |
|||
== Results == |
|||
The official results of the 2009 election were as follows:<ref>{{Cite web|url=http://www.burlingtonvotes.org/20090303/2009%20Burlington%20Mayor%20Round.htm|title=ChoicePlus Pro 2009 Burlington Mayor Round Detail Report|date=2011-07-25|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110725111725/http://www.burlingtonvotes.org/20090303/2009%20Burlington%20Mayor%20Round.htm|archive-date=2011-07-25|access-date=2018-01-03}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.burlingtonvotes.org/20090303/2009%20Burlington%20Mayor%20Round4.htm|title=ChoicePlus Pro 2009 Burlington Mayor Round 4 Report|date=March 3, 2009|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110725111051/http://www.burlingtonvotes.org/20090303/2009%20Burlington%20Mayor%20Round4.htm|archive-date=2011-07-25|url-status=dead|access-date=2011-02-28}}</ref> |
|||
{| class="wikitable" |
|||
! colspan="2" |Candidates |
|||
! colspan="3" |1st Round |
|||
! colspan="4" |2nd Round |
|||
! colspan="4" |3rd Round |
|||
|- |
|||
!Candidate |
|||
!Party |
|||
!Votes |
|||
!% |
|||
!% Active |
|||
!± |
|||
!Votes |
|||
!% |
|||
!% Active |
|||
!± |
|||
!Votes |
|||
!% |
|||
!% Active |
|||
|- {{Party shading/Vermont Progressive}} |
|||
| '''Bob Kiss''' |
|||
| [[Vermont Progressive Party|Progressive]] |
|||
| align="right" | 2,585 |
|||
| align="right" |28.8% |
|||
| align="right" |28.8% |
|||
| align="right" | +396 |
|||
| align="right" | 2,981 |
|||
| align="right" |33.2% |
|||
| align="right" |33.8% |
|||
| align="right" | +1332 |
|||
| align="right" | '''4,313''' |
|||
| align="right" |'''48.0%''' |
|||
| align="right" |'''51.5%''' |
|||
|- {{Party shading/Republican}} |
|||
|Kurt Wright |
|||
| [[Republican Party]] |
|||
| align="right" | '''2,951''' |
|||
| align="right" |'''32.9%''' |
|||
| align="right" |'''32.9%''' |
|||
| align="right" | +343 |
|||
| align="right" | '''3,294''' |
|||
| align="right" |'''36.7%''' |
|||
| align="right" |'''37.3%''' |
|||
| align="right" | +767 |
|||
| align="right" | 4,061 |
|||
| align="right" |45.2% |
|||
| align="right" |48.5% |
|||
|- {{Party shading/Democratic}} |
|||
| Andy Montroll |
|||
| [[Democratic Party]] |
|||
| align="right" | 2,063 |
|||
| align="right" |23.0% |
|||
| align="right" |23.0% |
|||
| align="right" | +491 |
|||
| align="right" | 2,554 |
|||
| align="right" |28.4% |
|||
| align="right" |28.9% |
|||
| align="right" | -2,554 |
|||
| align="right" | 0 |
|||
| align="right" |0.0% |
|||
| |
|||
|- |
|||
| Dan Smith |
|||
| (independent) |
|||
| align="right" | 1,306 |
|||
| align="right" |14.5% |
|||
| align="right" |14.5% |
|||
| align="right" | -1,306 |
|||
| align="right" | 0 |
|||
| align="right" |0.0% |
|||
| |
|||
| |
|||
| align="right" | 0 |
|||
| align="right" |0.0% |
|||
| |
|||
|- |
|||
| James Simpson |
|||
| [[Green Party]] |
|||
| align="right" | 35 |
|||
| align="right" |0.4% |
|||
| align="right" |0.4% |
|||
| align="right" | -35 |
|||
| align="right" | 0 |
|||
| align="right" |0.0% |
|||
| |
|||
| |
|||
| align="right" | 0 |
|||
| align="right" |0.0% |
|||
| |
|||
|- |
|||
| Write-in |
|||
| |
|||
| align="right" | 36 |
|||
| align="right" |0.4% |
|||
| align="right" |0.4% |
|||
| align="right" | -36 |
|||
| align="right" | 0 |
|||
| align="right" |0.0% |
|||
| |
|||
| |
|||
| align="right" | 0 |
|||
| align="right" |0.0% |
|||
| |
|||
|- |
|||
| EXHAUSTED PILE |
|||
| |
|||
| align="right" | 4 |
|||
| align="right" |0.0% |
|||
| align="right" |0.0% |
|||
| align="right" | +147 |
|||
| align="right" | 151 |
|||
| align="right" |1.7% |
|||
| |
|||
| align="right" | +455 |
|||
| align="right" | 606 |
|||
| align="right" |6.7% |
|||
| |
|||
|- |
|||
| TOTALS |
|||
| |
|||
| align="right" | 8980 |
|||
| align="right" |100.0% |
|||
| |
|||
| colspan="2" align="right" | 8980 |
|||
| align="right" |100.0% |
|||
| |
|||
| colspan="2" align="right" | 8980 |
|||
| align="right" |100.0% |
|||
| |
|||
|} |
|||
== Anaylsis == |
== Anaylsis == |