|
MESSAGE BOARD Real democracy?
In "Real Democracy" Christopher Shea examines the New England town meeting, which political scientist Frank Bryan considers the purest expression of American democracy. Do town meetings give citizens a chance to participate directly in politics to solve their problems face-to-face? Or are they an antiquated, inefficient system that favors activists over ordinary people?
Page 1 I really think town meeting don't work. The important questions are always put till the end. I have children so only one of us can attend. Setting up the questions and having a real vote would really represent all the people not just the ones that CAN attend. I think in the near future we should be able to vote on line. Really demoracy means 100% vote turn out james, Scituate I agree with James of Scituate. The potential is great, but the problem with Town Meeting today is participation. The format doesn't scale up. Without near-100% attendance, the cliques, vocal minorities, special interests,etc. dominate and the result is ANYTHING BUT "representative." I've been an alderman is a small city, and I've gone to Town Meeting where I live now, so I've seen both sides. Getting participation is nearly impossible these days. How can 200 people represent 9,000 voters? At least with representatives in city councils or aldermen, voters know they need to choose someone to represent their interests. The technology exists today to have Town Meetings over the Internet, which might improve participation, but it still wouldn't get full attendance. And if we have trouble with voting machines now, think how hard it would be to make direct Internet voting trustworthy? It could easily be rigged, and it would be hard to prove to the public it's secure. Town Meeting should be the way only for communities under 2,000 in population. Steve, North Andover Town meetings have pluses and minuses. One the plus side, everyone gets a chance to be heard. One the minus side, everyone have a chance to speak. Not everyone knows when they are relevant or when to stop talking. Attendance at town meetings is usually a small percentage of the population and big decisions are made by a small percentage of the people. I have seen where a handful of people have passed large pet spending projects after the majority of people have left the meetings. John , Allston Democracy is by its nature a messy, untidy process. If anything, I think activitists have less of a chance in a town meeting because "ordinary people" have more of a chance to speak up. What's essential is preparation and information so that attendees can make informed decisions, and a broadly based grasp of parliamentary procedure. Ann, Branford, CT I think that the open town meeting doesn't work anymore, particularly in towns that are bigger than 10-12,000 population. It is impossible for an individual to accomplish anything at the meetings, because by the time the meetings take place the work behind the articles has already happened and one person out of thousands who has to work full time is not in a position to have much of an impact. Debate at the meetings accomplishes very little, other than to drag the meetings out and put off the vote which is predetermined by which special interest group was able to mobilize their voter turnout. The NIMBY factor also makes it very difficult for any rational progress to take place in a town with this type of government, so that even if citizens work very hard to propose plans to intelligently solve problems, the open town meeting can be swamped with NIMBY votes or anti-tax votes, etc. It's very frustrating and people lose interest. Problems very often go unaddressed for decades. A representative town meeting would provide a better chance for problem solving and action. Peter, Sharon The problem with town meetings are the "townies" people born, raised, who have never lived anywhere else are generally not too progressive when it comes to their hometown and some newbies with new ideas show up. Town meetings may have worked when the population was fairly static but towns that then have to deal with a changing population are not too happy to let anyone "new" who is considered an outsider ( even if they live in the town for 10 years). Plus, "you have to live in this town" if you convey an dissenting opinion publicly, they know where you live and the "townies" have a vast network of friends and family to freeze you and your children out if you disagree on the more contentious issues. Take Watertown for instance, the School Board/ Superintendent flack that went on for the last two years was just ridiculous. There no longer appears to be such a thing as "polite society" where people can disagree without being disagreeable and it's a big problem in a smaller town , there's more safety in large population numbers and anonymity of the voting booth. M., watertown The problem with town meetings are the "townies" people born, raised, who have never lived anywhere else are generally not too progressive when it comes to their hometown and some newbies with new ideas show up. Town meetings may have worked when the population was fairly static but towns that then have to deal with a changing population are not too happy to let anyone "new" who is considered an outsider ( even if they live in the town for 10 years). Plus, "you have to live in this town" if you convey an dissenting opinion publicly, they know where you live and the "townies" have a vast network of friends and family to freeze you and your children out if you disagree on the more contentious issues. Take Watertown for instance, the School Board/ Superintendent flack that went on for the last two years was just ridiculous. There no longer appears to be such a thing as "polite society" where people can disagree without being disagreeable and it's a big problem in a smaller town , there's more safety in large population numbers and anonymity of the voting booth. M., watertown It is ironic that your article on "Real Democracy?" has garnered so few responses (as of Sunday 11pm PST) on the bulletin board. There was one week where everyone seemed to have an opinion on gay marriage-- when most people are not even effected by gay marriage. Yet we all should have an opinion on democracy and the conceptof town meetings because this impacts everyone and it is the foundation of this nation. The root idea that decisions about our lives and our money should be made as close as possible to us is not radical or pie in the sky utopia. Civic Culture or social capital means something because people feel efficacious. People participate when they know their voice counts. How may times have we heard people say No one in Washington listens? Your town politicians do not live inside the beltway! But the whole town meeting process rests on EDUCATION. Discussion and debate about the issues that face us only work when people are educated, informed, have critical thinking skills and listen. New England was unique for its homogenity, class solidarity, and education levels for citizens. The rate of the illliteracy in the South has always been higher alonside a greater discrepancy between the rich and the poor let alone race issues. That is why the founders of the New England states created mandatory PUBLIC education. Public education is directly tied to good government. Edcation was not left to those who could afford it. Today the media provides us with 10 second sound bytes and skwered vision of reality. Does 2+2=4? "Well our liberla colleague will now Chris Shea mentions H.L. Mencken and that is all fine and well Mencken was an elitist and thought that most people were morons. Chris, Goleta, CA Town meetings are great! Our annual town meeting is a wonderful affair hosted by a great moderator. People are respectful of one another and get a chance to speak their mind. No big money politics is involved, no one is trying to win favor. People are brutally honest and most of the time are trying to see the right thing done. john, Manchester Town meeting has seen its day. I am a resident of Bedford, MA and father of two children, aged 2 and 4. For an Annual Town Meeting that could last 10 or more hours over the course of two or three nights, my wife and I would have to pay at least $100 to baby sitters, and be without our children on two or three consecutive evenings. Imagine the hours of debate that would be generated at town meeting if there was a proposal on the table that would raise property taxes by an average of $100 in the town? One may say "what price democracy," but from my observation young families are woefully underrepresented, with one or both parents not in attendance. An example of the impact this can have occurred three years ago at the Annual Town Meeting. A lifelong resident of the town wanted to refurbish the eyesore juxtaposed across the street from the picturesque Unitarian Church. His ties and commitment to the town and its people were apparent. Had his request passed at town meeting, Bedford Center would today likely have a more vibrant town center, the kind of place where people come together on a Saturday morning to chat, have a cup of coffee or maybe browse in a shop other than in a strip mall, like Lexington or Concord centers. To make a long story short, the rezoning that was necessary for the project failed by eight votes. I know at least 3 people who were home with their children that would have voted in favor of this proposal. And while I was sitting there, a young couple who was brave enough to attend with their infant left before Article came up for consideration at 11 PM (The Article had been one of the first on the slate, but in a cynical manipulation of the process, a vote was taken to push it to the end of the night's proceedings). I have considered urging via the town's paper urging everyone with children to attend the meeting with the children ( as is shown in the Rockwell painting you show next to Christopher Shea's column). Of course this would never happen, but I would love to see a town meeting with all the town's parents and their young children in attendance for four or five hours, two or three nights in a row. Today, as you drive west through Bedford, notice the beautiful Town Green and Unitarian Church on the left. Then look to your right at the ramshackle row of stores whose owner wanted to renovate. The project would have added not only to the beauty of the center, but also to its sense of community and economic vitality (in Bedford Center, gas stations and banks thrive, while the occasional specialty shop or business that pops up tends not to do so well because there's nothing else there). But the project did not happen because of an outdated and inadequate form of town governance. Joe G., Bedford, MA
|
Read the story: 
