Burlington, Vermont, holds city elections in March, every year. The elections are partisan. The city has 13 city council members. Currently, Democrats hold 7 seats, Republicans hold 2, Progressives 2, there are 2 independents, and one vacancy.
Seven of the 14 seats are up in March 2010. The Progressive Party is running nominees for five of the seven seats. See the party’s blog, announcing the slate, here.
From the article, it *looks* like none of the five are incumbents, and only one of them is running to fill a seat now held by a Progressive incumbent. If this is so, then at least theoretically the Council could wind up with 6 out of 13 seats filled by Progressives?
Yes, in theory.
#1 There are 7 wards, with two councilors elected from each ward. Each year, one councilor is elected from each ward for a two-year term.
There are actually 8 seats open in March because of a vacancy that resulted from a Progressive councilor moving to a different ward in December 2009. That councilor, Emma Mulvaney-Stanak, is now running in her new ward, to replace a Progressive councilor who is not seeking re-election.
So 3 of the Progressives are challenging in seats that are currently held by Democrats; one is running to fill a vacancy due to a Progressive resigning; and the Progressive who resigned is running in a different ward to replace an incumbent Progressive.
Ah . . . so then both of the incumbent Progressives are going to be out of their old seats, it’s just that one of them may be taking over for the other? (In which case the maximum number of Progressives on the Council will only be five.)
(Oh — and if there are two seats for each of seven wards, but only 13 seats in total, something isn’t adding up. . . .)
Some of the seats are at large maybe?
How do those two independents lean?
One of the seven wards only elects one member of the city council. That is why there are 13 seats instead of 14. There are no at-large seats.
My original post, and also my comment #6, was wrong. I had looked on Burlington city government’s web page and saw on 13 city council members. But that is because there is one vacancy.
Thanks to everyone for clearing things up. One last (I think) follow-up: so . . . does the mayor only vote to break ties, then, maybe?
#4
In 2008, there was a Progressive elected in Ward 3.
In 2009, there were Progressives elected in Wards 2 and 3.
Until December 2009, there were 3 Progressives, when the Progressive from Ward 2 resigned because she moved. So currently both Progressives are from Ward 3. The one elected in 2009 does not face re-election until 2011.
In 2010, you will have:
Ward 1: Progressive running against Democratic incumbent.
Ward 2 (full, 2-year term) Progressive running against Democratic incumbent.
Ward 2 (remaining 1-year to fill vacancy left by Progressive) Progressive vs. Democrat.
Ward 3: Progressive who was elected in Ward 2 in 2009, and moved creating the vacancy vs. (???), to replace incumbent Progressive who is not seeking re-election. It is possible that this will be an unopposed race.
Ward 5: Progressive vs. Democratic incumbent.