The decline of participation in Town Meeting has been the subject of comment for at least 30 years and probably more. But the widespread adoption of Australian ballot voting as an alternative for the past two years during the pandemic seems to more urgently pose the question of whether New England’s annual exercise in direct democracy is a quaint anachronism of an agrarian past, or a political institution of continued relevance.
Perhaps typical of the former opinion is what a Hinesburg, Vt., resident told the alternative weekly Seven Days: “Requiring people to be at a certain place at a certain date and time to vote runs counter to the way society is moving.”
It’s hard to argue with that, but society doesn’t always move in the right direction. Town Meeting is not only still relevant but its preservation and reinvigoration are vitally important at a time when democratic institutions are under assault in the United States and around the world.
Town Meeting is a tradition that stretches back 250 years or more in New England; societies that carelessly abandon cherished traditions are prone to losing their way in other respects as well.
Certainly there are communities in both Vermont and New Hampshire that have outgrown the traditional floor meeting at which articles are discussed in person and can be amended before a vote is taken. That procedure is difficult to scale up to the needs of larger cities and towns facing more complex challenges, and for them the Australian ballot is virtually a necessity.
But where face-to-face interaction is still possible, in small to medium-sized communities, Town Meeting represents a unique form of democracy. The opportunity it affords to shape policy by informing oneself and amending articles on the warning (Vermont) or warrant (New Hampshire) makes those who participate not merely voters but legislators for a day. Moreover, floor discussion can provide important feedback for elected officials about their budgets and other proposals, and serves as a way to check the general tenor of community concerns. As former Vermont Gov. Jim Douglas, who now teaches at Middlebury College, pointed out in an interview with Seven Days, “It was at Town Meeting in the 1830s and 1840s that Vermonters started talking about ending slavery.”
Alexis de Tocqueville, in his classic Democracy in America, recognized the importance of the New England Town Meeting tradition in the development of citizenship in the fullest sense of the word. Town affairs constitute the political arena closest to the individual and the one in which an individual can most easily and effectively influence decision making. Moreover, with a variety of offices to be filled, there are multiple opportunities for ordinary residents to be elected and to serve, doing their civic duty while getting further educated in the nuts and bolts of government.
A particular strength of the in-person meeting at this time in our national life is the obligation it imposes to listen carefully to what others are saying and make a considered response, in a civil manner.
Skills of persuasion are needed badly in these divisive times, when the ascendance of social media and the propensity toward viciousness displayed by many of its users have made threats and harassment all too common in politics at all levels.
Traditional Town Meeting also promotes social cohesion in the face of fragmentation. It facilitates getting acquainted or reacquainted with neighbors with whom one does not regularly have contact, and when refreshments are provided, breaking bread together can help break down barriers to communication.
We suspect that by this point, a number of readers will be shaking their heads at this meditation-on-civics masquerading as an editorial and asking just how we propose to reverse, or at least stem, the long-term decline in attendance and participation at Town Meeting. That is the subject for another day, and will be addressed accordingly.