Above: A lot of empty seats at a past town meeting (photo by Chris Wraight)
Town meeting may be seven months away, but officials are already starting to take a look at budgets for next year. With little fat left to trim, some are warning voters will be forced to make difficult decisions come April.
If history is any indication, those decisions – decisions that impact the entire town – will be made by a tiny fraction of the voting population. Last year for example, only 6% of registered voters attended town meeting. One selectman believes technology may be the key to changing the pattern of low turnout.
Selectman John Rooney has proposed not only broadcasting town meeting live on the web, but going one step further and allowing residents to actually vote on articles from the comfort of their home.
In a comment on this blog yesterday, Rooney expressed concern about the town’s ability to make good decisions when those decisions are being made by only a small percentage of residents.
“In essence, most of the residents default their decision-making authority to the small group of residents who attend the meeting. As a result, the meeting may go in a direction that does not reflect the wishes of the vast majority of the residents because the majority has chosen not to attend,” he wrote.
“Presently at town meeting, a small group represent the interests of all citizens, although no one has elected them to do so, and they are accountable to no one.”
In an ideal world, residents would clear their calendars and make a point of being at town meeting, Rooney said. But since they don’t he argues, we need to look at other solutions “to allow direct democracy to survive and flourish.”
Internet voting would “redefine what ‘present’ means” at town meeting Rooney said.
What Rooney said he wants to know now is whether live Internet voting at Town Meeting is something residents want. “The question then becomes, of course, whether there is any appetite, assuming affirmative legislative sanction, to engage in remote residential voting,” he wrote.
When Rooney first proposed the idea of web broadcasting coupled with remote voting back in May, a number of you agreed it was worth looking into.
What do you think now? Is web voting a good idea or are the risks too great? Rooney argues that increasing residential participation through remote voting is the democratic thing to do. Do you agree?
Read Rooney’s full comment here, and then answer the poll below and share your thoughts in the comments. (If you’re reading this via the My Southborough daily email, you’ll need to visit the blog to vote or see the results.)
I voted no on this idea. I wanted to back up my vote with some of my thinking. We have lived in Southborough for 41 years. We haven’t been to every town meeting but we have been to most. Yes, they are boring many times. I can remember a long debate on whether or not the police cars should have A/C (this was a few years ago). We don’t say much in town meeting. We just vote. Last year I remember that once the school budget was settled a lot of people left. That was all they cared about. Doing on-line voting would make one issue votes a lot more likely I fear. To me, attendance at town meeting is the price we pay for having a say in our taxes and how our tax money is spent. Democracy is not easy. It requires some tradeoffs (playing with my kids and letting someone else decide my fate or spending time being bored from time to time). I don’t want to make voting in town meeting too easy. If you are not there to hear the arguments for or against an issue, how can you possibly make an informed decision?
Excellent Post Mr. Snyder. I agree with you.
I agree with Dick. I don’t feel confident about the security of online voting. It is my duty as a tax payer to attend Town Meeting, listen to both sides of the issue and vote.
We don’t have to hear arguments for state ballot questions to vote on those and they often have far greater impact. I don’t need to listen to the pro’s/con’s on whether the police need AC, I just want a town vote on the issue so that the most accurate representation on how the town feels on an issue gets voted through. Now thats democracy!
I don’t agree with online voting either, seems like a disaster waiting to happen. Town meeting questions should be voted on at regularly scheduled town elections, just like state ballot questions. A pro/con section can be written up hopefully giving the uniformed at least some information.
I just don’t agree that we should have to “pay a price” to participate in democracy. I would love my opinion to count, but spending time with my kids will always win.
With all due respect, if 2 days a year is too high a “price” for someone to pay to make their opinion count, then it seems to me that that opinion counts for all that it is worth when you stay home.
I cannot fathom the “I’m too busy” sentiment. We meet as a Town once a year for 2 days, and that’s not enough time for to plan ahead? If your answer is “yes” then you don’t begin to fathom how lucky you are to live in America and not in so many other places on Earth where people struggle and die every day just for the glimmer of a hope for self-determination (and I am not being overly dramatic). As a military veteran, comments like SB Resident’s make me want to cry.
Here’s what I don’t understand. You want the town to vote on issues so that you get the most accurate representation of the town’s opinions and values on each issue (“Now that’s democracy!”), yet you don’t want to make it easier to facilitate such a process? What exactly are your reservations? You make a vague claim about online voting being “a disaster waiting to happen”, and yet you cite no sources to back up your statement. Have you done any research into other towns that have tried this method to see what problems may have arisen, and whether or not overall it was a net benefit to the town? Are you in the habit of avoiding progress for the sake of avoiding problems? Throughout this country’s history people have met problems head on in the name of advancing progress, and we are all better for it. I do not believe in avoidance as an answer to a problem that is becoming increasingly prevalent and important.
People should be free to speak their mind – here, and at Town Meeting – regardless of their situation (be it restraints on time, availability, family, whatever the reason). Just as I firmly believe in the right (not privilege) for you to post your opinions anonymously, so too do I believe in the right for all residents to voice their opinions on matters that affect them in town. That is why I am in favor of pursuing research into the costs, benefits, and feasibility of both televised Town Meeting and online voting. We owe it to ourselves to at least look into it, and then make an informed decision about whether to proceed with it or continue with the status quo.
I DO WANT TO MAKE IT EASIER. I want it so easy that it can take five minutes in a voting booth and easy enough where I don’t have to listen to people who aren’t experts on the topics bicker about them for hours on end just to get my chance to vote.
I do not cite sources because I have none: It was just a generic opinion. I’m not against it, I can just see it as likely too costly / error prone / fraudulent without doing a study. Thus my in person ballot style recommendation. To me it seems, to be the easiest, safest, cheapest solution. Again all opinions… I choose progress by solving problems wisely.
To I love america, I don’t think I said anything that warrants tears. I respect the intent of what you are saying, but the problem is that these issues just aren’t that big to warrant my time. I value the time with my kids more than having my opinion count on these issues. It makes me want to cry if someone can’t respect that. The world is about family/fun/life not government affairs. Given the attendance at town meeting I’m in the clear majority here.
The intent of my inquiry was to determine if increased participation in town government was likely if town meeting was live webcast and residents were allowed to vote from the comfort of their homes. From many of the comments, some residents are content to vest in a small percentage of residents the authority to shape the budget and vote on warrant articles, simply because they have more important things to do.
The status quo best serves that mindset, as any change may not necessarily decrease voter apathy. The importance of family time (an importance I similarly cherish) takes precedence for some over direct democracy which was designed to enact the will of the people. The result is that town meeting makes decisions impacting every resident by simple majority rule of those in attendance. If greater participation at town meeting does not occur, and only 5% of the residents actually vote, then Benjamin Franklin’s famous quip that “democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch” is realized. If we maintain the status quo, which is always the easy path to take, we are choosing to be governed by a town meeting that does not reflect the will of the people in Southborough. To believe otherwise, while comforting, is not accurate.
In response to C. Nicholas Ellis, Internet voting is not a new concept. In the 2000 Arizona Democratic Primary, voters could voluntarily choose to cast their ballots online or by traditional means. That effort succeeded in increasing voter interest and suffered no breach of security or electoral failure. The Alaska Republican Party also conducted a straw poll over the Internet in 2000 with similar results. Military personnel overseas are allowed to vote via the Internet. These are just a few examples. I am unaware of anyone exploring this issue within the context of town meeting. Security issues do exist, and of course they would need to be explored.
Lets face it, the Internet revolution causes many of us to conduct major aspects of our lives via the Internet. We bank, pay bills and track finances; we communicate with our families, friends and colleagues; we get our news, trade stocks and manage accounts; we engage in international commerce, and we run our own businesses of all sizes. The Internet has become entrenched in the American way of life and provides a mechanism through which absent voters can participate meaningfully in town government. It remains questionable, however, whether such effort on the part of the town is warranted if the end result will not be a substantial increase in residential participation.
I continue to agree with Mr. Rooney and now also agree with C. Nicholas Ellis.
To “I love America”……… Please don’t come at it from an “I love America” standpoint because you then imply that people who disagree with you do not love America and that is just unfair. It is because I love America and what it means to live here that I want my vote and all residents’ votes to count. (just for the record, I DO go to Town Meeting).
I am just as American as you and I am just as appreciative of those that lost their lives to create and protect these freedoms. Because you cannot go to Town Meeting does not mean you do not appreciate those who made our freedoms possible. Life is just not that simple anymore.
To SB Resident: How can you have kids and not be interested in the issues at Town Meeting? Some of these issues directly effect their schooling. “The world is about fun/family/life and not government”…really? I want to live in your world because this current one has government making decisions which are certainly effecting my fun, family and life.
THE BOTTOM LINE IS: the system of voting at Town Meeting isn’t working the way it was set up to work if only 6 percent of registered voters are attending. It just isn’t working. It SHOULD be representative of the town but it is not. People SHOULD make the time and SHOULD plan ahead, etc……..but they don’t. SO…..how do we make the vote actually represent the Town? Give them another option.
Instead of calling them un-American or unappreciative of those who gave their lives for such freedoms, because it is not really about that, why not change and tweak the current system and bring it up to date. Like Mr. Rooney commented above, we do
everything online….why not vote as well?
Pat Q, please fan yourself down. My moniker “I love America” was chosen for exactly the same reason you stated in YOUR post — “I love America and what it means to live here” — nothing more. Nothing in my post said that SB Resident was unAmerican — that was just your imagination working overtime. We live in the greatest country on Earth, with vast freedoms and resources many citizens grossly underappreciate (especially compared to so many other places in the world). My issue with SB Resident was also echoed by you (“I want to live in your world because this current one has government making decisions which are certainly effecting my fun, family and life.”). What people like SB Resident in this Town and this country don’t get is that their carefree preference for “fun/family/life” is only possible because we live here, and because of the foundations on which this nation is built, like self-government.
As for online participation, I don’t have a strong feeling either way about its feasibility, but I highly doubt its effectiveness. Quite simply, people have to want to participate first. Mr. Rooney had it right when he allowed at the end of his post that the whole idea of increased access is meaningless if it will not materially affect participation. I don’t think for a second that there are thousands (or even hundreds) of voters in Town sitting at home champing at the bit to get involved, if only they had some other vehicle for voting. Logistics is not the primary reason 94% of voters miss Town Meeting, apathy is.
Why is Mr. Rooney tilting at this windmill? He seems to love getting his name in the paper.
Online voting at Town Meeting is likely illegal and undoubtedly extraordinarily expensive to implement.