To the editor:
I am writing this letter in response to Dave Kelley’s opinion piece in last week’s Gazette. Dave and I agree on everything to do with trout fishing and agree to disagree on a large percentage of everything else. His opinion piece is no exception.
That said I do agree with Dave that town meeting is an important democratic institution that we should cherish.
However I would challenge a number of points he makes in his opinion piece in arguing against the Australian ballot.
At one point he suggests that live-streaming would somehow be an alternative to the Australian ballot. If someone could point me to a town anywhere which has legally allowed voting over live-stream and figured out how to make it work to the satisfaction of their citizens and the law I would appreciate it.
Later on he states that “Democracy . . . should not depend on the votes of people we never see.” That an individual’s right to vote should depend on their visibility in the community where they are registered to vote seems to me to be about as undemocratic and inequitable as you can get.
My position on this issue is one of compromise. I believe that town officers should be elected by Australian ballot to provide equity and broaden the mandate while town meeting should be preserved by deliberating and voting on everything else from the floor. For me that provides a good balance between equity and engagement and in the process preserves an important Vermont tradition.
However, I also think the value of debate and engagement at town meeting is diminished when questions are called early when it is clear there are strong opinions from the floor that are still not fully heard. That is what happened on the budget question at Greensboro Town Meeting this year and I believe that has been an important contributor to the current debate in our town about moving all questions away from Town Meeting.
Chris Steel
Greensboro
