Before Bernie Sanders, progressive politics, and maple syrup fame, Vermont operated under one of the most unique political systems in American history. It had no legal code. No formal documentation. And it was never voted on by the people.
Yet for over 100 years, it quietly governed how power was shared in the Green Mountain State.
This was the Mountain Rule, an unwritten agreement that dictated who could run for office, where they had to live, and how long they could serve. It defined Vermont politics for generations and still echoes in the state’s political culture today.
What Was the Mountain Rule?
The Mountain Rule was an informal power-sharing system developed in the early 1800s by Vermont’s Republican Party. Its core purpose was simple: maintain political balance between the east and west sides of the Green Mountains.
Key features of the Mountain Rule:
- Regional rotation of political offices between eastern and western Vermont
- Single two-year term limit for governors to ensure turnover
- Opposite-region pairing for governor and lieutenant governor (e.g., if the governor was from the east, the lieutenant governor was from the west)
- Senate seat division: One U.S. senator from each side of the mountains
- Party enforcement through backroom deals at Republican conventions
There was no law behind it. It wasn’t written down. But for over a century, everyone followed it.
Why It Was Created
The Mountain Rule was a response to Vermont’s unusual political landscape in the 19th and early 20th centuries.
Context that led to the rule:
- One-party dominance: From the 1850s until the 1960s, the Republican Party controlled almost all levels of government in Vermont
- Lack of competition: Without a viable opposition party, there was a risk of internal division within the GOP
- Regional divide: Eastern and western Vermont had distinct economies and identities, making equitable representation important
What the Mountain Rule accomplished:
- Prevented intra-party feuds by making sure no faction or region dominated
- Created a predictable leadership pipeline
- Aligned with Vermont values of local control, modesty, and fairness
- Ensured geographic equity at a time when infrastructure limited east-west interaction
It was a practical solution, not an idealistic one — a way to keep the peace within a party that had no external challengers.
How It Worked in Practice
For more than a century, the Mountain Rule wasn’t just a suggestion. It was a political reality.
How it shaped state politics:
- Governors served only one term, typically alternating sides of the Green Mountains
- U.S. Senate seats were split — one for the east, one for the west
- Lieutenant governors and House speakers were selected to balance regional representation
- Party leaders enforced it at state conventions, choosing nominees based on geography and timing
There was no public debate. No written rulebook. But the system was so entrenched that it operated like law.
The Benefits of the Mountain Rule
Despite being undemocratic by today’s standards, the Mountain Rule had several benefits:
- Stability: Prevented party infighting and allowed for smooth transitions of power
- Rotation: Gave more citizens a chance to lead, avoiding entrenched political dynasties
- Fairness: Balanced representation between Vermont’s two geographic halves
- Efficiency: Reduced the need for messy primary battles or factional disputes
In many ways, it was a political machine that worked — not because it was imposed from above, but because it was understood and respected from within.
When and Why It Fell Apart
By the mid-20th century, the Mountain Rule was beginning to unravel.
Key reasons for its decline:
1. Rise of the Democratic Party
- In the 1950s, Democrats started gaining traction in Vermont
- Republicans could no longer rely on internal rotation, they had to field candidates who could win real elections
2. Introduction of direct primaries
- Until then, party insiders picked nominees at conventions
- With primaries, voters could challenge the party’s preferred candidates
- Geography became less important than electability
3. Hoff’s historic win in 1962
- Democrat Philip H. Hoff, from Burlington, won the governorship
- First Democrat to hold the office since before the Civil War
- Marked the clear end of Republican dominance and the Mountain Rule’s power
By the 1970s, Vermont politics had transitioned into a more competitive, voter-driven landscape.
What Remains of the Mountain Rule Today
While the Mountain Rule no longer controls who runs for office, its spirit still shapes Vermont’s political identity.
Lasting impacts:
- Cultural memory of power-sharing still influences expectations about fairness and representation
- Citizen legislature structure reflects the values of rotation and community leadership
- Regional equity remains a concern in debates over education funding, healthcare, and infrastructure
- Suspicion of political dynasties and careerism continues to shape local attitudes
Vermonters may not talk about the Mountain Rule often, but its legacy can be seen in how seriously the state still takes balance, modesty, and access in its political process.
Why It Still Matters
The Mountain Rule offers lessons that are surprisingly relevant today:
- Power can be restrained without formal laws
- Unwritten norms — when shared and respected — can maintain political order
- Balance and fairness are enduring values, especially in small states
- Cooperation can be baked into culture, not just codified in rules
In an era of hyper-partisanship and national polarization, Vermont’s old habit of quiet, predictable power-sharing feels refreshing.
Final Thoughts
The Mountain Rule might sound quaint now. But for more than 100 years, it kept Vermont politically stable without scandal or chaos.
It was never democratic in a modern sense. It was never written into law. And yet, it worked — because Vermonters believed in taking turns, in limiting power, and in making space for voices on both sides of the mountains.
In a state that still values neighborliness over noise, the Mountain Rule remains one of the most fascinating and defining chapters in Vermont’s political history.
Leave a comment