Posted by Charity on October 31st, 2008

The other day, the Free Press had results for the latest poll on Vermont’s race for governor.

No surprise Tuesday that Jim Douglas, Vermont’s Republican incumbent governor, holds a 23 percentage-point lead over his closest rival in this fall’s gubernatorial contest, Democrat Gaye Symington, according to a new poll released by WCAX-TV.

If this comforts Douglas supporters, it shouldn’t.

In the state of Vermont, if no candidate receives 50% of the vote, the legislature votes for the winner from among the top three finishers.

This year, there has been very audible chatter from the left about pressuring Democrats in the legislature to vote for Symington. It will not matter that she is more than 20-points behind because they count Pollina votes in her column.

Do not be over-confident about the poll numbers for Douglas. Get out and vote!

Tell all of your friends who are thinking about staying home to get out there too.

Where I live, the lines at the polls are sure to be long, Barack Obama is guaranteed a win, and we have no choice in state representative (two Dems. for two seats). Knowing that Jim Douglas is safe, might be enough to keep people home.

Don’t do it!

We need to get Jim Douglas over 50%, so the Democrats cannot “steal” this election.

Tell your friends. It’s your civic duty.

3 Responses to “Get Out And Vote for Douglas”

  1. Actually the word ‘”steal”‘, with or without quotes doesn’t belong in this context at all. The Vermont constitution is a clear as a bell on a bright, cold Sunday morning: if no candidate for governor reaches that magical 50% + 1 level … the legislature gets to decide.

    There is a way to take that power away from the legislature: enact instant runoff voting. That, Charity, would put folks like you and I in the drivers seat and allow US to decide how our government is formed.

    Of course your buddy Douglas (and the rest of the elected Republicans and a small number of Democrats) believes you and I and the rest of Vermonters are just plain too stupid to understand the simple concept of rating one’s choice in order of preference.

    One can argue IRV for gubernatorial races require a constitutional amendment (I can find no evidence this is true), but I don’t believe one can accurately argue that leaving runoff situations solely in the hands of the state’s General Assembly is beneficial to our democratic principles (did I get the correct one?).

    So rather than using accusatory language like “steal”, how joining me in a new push for IRV?

  2. I put steal in quotes because I was using it sarcastically. (Like air quotes.)

    I know it is legal. So was the election of 2000, yet it has been called “stolen” for the past 8 years!

  3. Uh … 2000 was a case of the Supreme Court stopping the counting in Florida before everybody had a chance to have their votes counted. We know this for a fact … that puts it in an entirely different context than merely not receiving 50% + 1 of the vote.

    It was not a legal action … the Supreme Court way overstepped their constitutional authority: “Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector.” (Art 2, Sec 1)

    In the end the Supreme Court ruled that time constraints put in place by legislation of Congress outweighed the explicit wording of the constitution.

    It was, in a very real sense of the word, stolen.