2003 Commentary                                           Back to Commentary

---

Majority Rule in Vermont's Elections  - February 2003

Election Reform – Challenges and Opportunities - June 2003

---

Opinion Editorial: February 2003
Majority Rule in Vermont's Elections
Deborah Markowitz, Secretary of State

There are many ways in which to measure the health of a democratic society. How many of its children live in poverty? How many of its people have access to adequate food, housing, health care? How much investment is there in education, the arts, preserving history? Looking at many of these indicators, Vermont has a lot to be proud of. However, as Vermont’s Secretary of State I believe we must also measure the health of a society by looking at the level of participation in its democracy. And in that regard, I believe we have a way to go.

In last year’s general election just over 50% of the eligible voters in Vermont chose to participate. The other half stayed home. Why? We have made it very easy to vote. Anyone can choose to vote early or to do it all by mail. It was easy for voters to learn about what the candidates stood for. A record number of debates were held all across Vermont, and candidates and their parties spent millions of dollars reaching voters with advertisements talking about what they saw as the important issues for the state. Then why did so many Vermonters not bother to cast a ballot on Election Day?

In my travels around Vermont I have heard from some Vermonters who have said that they did not vote because they believed their vote – even if it was cast – wouldn’t count. In Vermont, if the Governor, Lieutenant Governor or Treasure get less than 50% of the vote the legislature gets to elect these leaders in a secret ballot vote.

But I believe that this is just half the story. Our democracy is less than healthy today because there is a critical disconnect. A disconnect between what Vermonters expect – and reality. Most people believe that democracy means majority rule – that our leaders are chosen by vote of the majority. But with ten people running for governor, the candidate who won received barely 45% of the vote.

When people see our highest officials being elected to office with not even a bare majority of support from the voters it is not surprising that voters get cynical.

I believe it is time for change. Time to bridge the disconnect and bring to Vermont elections true majority rule. Time to take elections away from the Vermont legislature to let Vermonters’ votes count.

This year the legislature will be considering two bills, S22 and H82, both of which propose to change our voting system to ensure majority rule. These Instant Runoff Voting proposals would permit us to hold a runoff count in the event that no candidate in a race earns over 50% of the vote without the time and expense of running a new election. The proposals are simple – when voters cast their ballot not only do they indicate a top choice – but also get the option of indicating a second or third choice. If no candidate is the first choice of at least 50%, all but the top two vote-getters are eliminated and all ballots are counted again. Just like in a traditional runoff election, voters whose top candidate was eliminated will have their next choice count. In this way the candidate preferred by a majority of voters wins, regardless of the number of candidates in a race.

Sometimes actions speak louder than words. By staying home on Election Day, Vermonters have made it clear that we must take steps to strengthen our democracy. What will really make the difference is to give people reasons to vote - majority rule will help get us there.

Back to Top

---

Opinion Editorial: June 2003
Election Reform – Challenges and Opportunities
Deborah Markowitz, Secretary of State

During the 2000 election we saw a dramatic demonstration of what can happen when our voting procedures and technology are not kept up to date. Indeed, what occurred in Florida may have altered the course of history. What we learned in the months that followed was that the problems we saw in Florida were indicative of problems endemic to voting systems nationwide – although not in Vermont.

The Help America Vote Act (HAVA) was passed by Congress to help solve these problems. It helps states replace their unreliable voting machines, and it requires uniform election procedures and standards so that voters have the same rights no matter where they live.

For the nation, HAVA is a great law. It will help restore faith in our elections.

For Vermont, HAVA presents opportunities and poses challenges.

The changes required by HAVA will not be noticeable to most Vermonters. People who vote in towns that use paper ballots and hand-count results will continue to do so. Communities that use optical scan machines to count their votes will continue to do so.

But behind the scenes HAVA will make a positive difference. Vermont is eligible to receive over 9 million dollars. This money will help us build a statewide voter checklist. Our visually impaired voters will be given an opportunity to vote privately and independently using up to date technology. We will have resources to conduct voter outreach programs to increase voter turnout, and we will be able to better educate our election workers.

On the other hand, HAVA mandates changes that reflect unnecessary solutions to problems we do not have. Some of these changes raise concerns about individual rights to privacy and the role of the Federal government in telling the states how to register voters and run our elections.

The most controversial provision of HAVA is the requirement that people who register to vote must provide their driver’s license number, or if they have none, the last four digits of their social security number. The law contemplates that these numbers will help prevent voter fraud by permitting election administrators to determine whether a voter is registered and voting in more than one place. The inflexibility of the law means we cannot use less intrusive means to provide the same results

When these provisions go into effect a person who registers to vote but fails to provide these numbers will not be added to the voter checklist. This is troublesome because the Federal requirements may be too restrictive under Vermont Constitutional law.

Many legislators also expressed a deep concern that the collection of drivers license numbers as a prerequisite for registration and voting brings us one step closer to a national identification system that would permit the government to track us in our daily lives.

Despite these concerns, and to avoid jeopardizing federal funding, the legislature passed HAVA. We will be requesting a waiver until 2006 for the provisions of law related to the collection of personal identification numbers. This waiver, if granted, would permit us to begin a conversation in Vermont about individual privacy and the right to vote.

As part of this conversation the legislature will take up the issue of whether we should split our voter checklist so that the federal mandates would apply only to voting in federal races, preserving our right to run our state and local elections according to our own beliefs about what makes sense for Vermont.

The issues the legislature grappled with under HAVA are difficult, and many Vermonters share their strong feelings. It was a good decision to pass the bill and preserve the federal funding; and it is good that many of these issues will be revisited in the legislature next year.

HAVA is not perfect; no bill is. However, despite the controversy, it presents us with a terrific opportunity to shore up the integrity of our electoral process, improve voter participation, and renew public confidence in this most cherished democratic right.

The new legislation and proposed Vermont’s State Implementation Plan can be found at www.sec.state.vt.us, or by calling the Secretary of State office at 1-800-439-8683.

Back to Top