Democracy requires effort; lets say 'no' to SB2
www.citizen.com Friday, March 21, 2008
Editor, The Citizen: I keep reading a lot about disenfranchised voters and how SB2 would allow more participation in voting. I also recently read an editorial by Mr. Leiterman in the March 19 Citizen referring to voters feeling "comfortable to express their true feeling" in reference to secret balloting and how, under SB2, "voters are guided by their opinion and their conscience" As opposed to what? Hiding one's true feelings because of the fear that someone else will be aware of them? Voting against their personal opinions and against their own conscience because of how someone else feels or thinks?
Democracy, no matter what the form, is not a spectator sport. It is not freely given, but is earned, sometimes at the cost of bloodshed. I have good friends with whom I disagree on many issues, political or otherwise. It makes them no less my friends; it is simply part of being adults with independent views. We, as citizens, are not guaranteed or entitled to feeling "comfortable" in the exercise of our democracy. We, as citizens, do have the responsibility to speak our minds and participate in our form of self-government.
The Moultonborough Citizens Alliance talks about "more open and transparent local government", yet these same people would have us go to a form of government where all the final voting would be done in secret and no one would be accountable for their individual vote. Every major legislative body in our country is held accountable for their individual votes in the public record; would we ask any less of ourselves at the most basic level of self-government?
Mr. Heath has been repeatedly beating the drum for SB2, recently stating that the town meeting was obsolete and that SB2 would not throw every budget into default. I could not disagree more with the first statement and while SB2 obviously does not throw every budget into default, it most certainly has cost many towns money due to default budgets & related capitol outlay issues, etc. It is certainly a lot easier to vote down any and all spending from the "comfort" of one's home or the privacy of the voting booth and not have to look one's fellow citizen in the eyes while doing so. But is that really a better way to carry out our democracy?
The Ossipee Park Road Article at this year's town meeting is a good example. I was one who thought it was ridiculous to be spending almost a million dollars on a road that clearly has been run down by the traffic of a multimillion dollar company. As was evident by some of the initial discussion, I was not alone in this line of thinking. However after much debate, discussion and information given by selectmen, town counsel, etc., I came to the conclusion that it was probably best to vote for the article, as did the majority of voters present.
I use this issue as an example only because it represents a change of opinion based on information and debate that can only occur as it did in the town meeting forum. SB2 (the short name given to RSA 40:13) mandates two separate but equally important sessions of the "annual meeting", the first of which is for the "explanation, discussion, and debate of each warrant article" (commonly referred to as the "deliberative session"). I wonder how those same voters who cannot find a way to get to our current town meeting are going to somehow find a way to this annual meeting. Or is the ability to get a larger number of votes cast, whether informed and educated on the articles before them or not, the real goal? SB2, as enacted in our state right now, does not change the fact that we, as voters, have a responsibility to get out and attend an annual meeting where we can discuss and debate the articles before our town. It does, however, eliminate the requirement to be present for any debate or discussion that comes up in order to vote on an article before the town legislative body.
Do I think the Town Meeting as we currently employ it is perfect? No more than I think our representative democracy as a whole is perfect. But as with our state and federal forms of government, I have not yet seen anything better, certainly not SB2.
Jonathan Tolman
Moultonborough
The Moultonborough Citizens Alliance talks about "more open and transparent local government", yet these same people would have us go to a form of government where all the final voting would be done in secret and no one would be accountable for their individual vote. Every major legislative body in our country is held accountable for their individual votes in the public record; would we ask any less of ourselves at the most basic level of self-government?
Mr. Heath has been repeatedly beating the drum for SB2, recently stating that the town meeting was obsolete and that SB2 would not throw every budget into default. I could not disagree more with the first statement and while SB2 obviously does not throw every budget into default, it most certainly has cost many towns money due to default budgets & related capitol outlay issues, etc. It is certainly a lot easier to vote down any and all spending from the "comfort" of one's home or the privacy of the voting booth and not have to look one's fellow citizen in the eyes while doing so. But is that really a better way to carry out our democracy?
The Ossipee Park Road Article at this year's town meeting is a good example. I was one who thought it was ridiculous to be spending almost a million dollars on a road that clearly has been run down by the traffic of a multimillion dollar company. As was evident by some of the initial discussion, I was not alone in this line of thinking. However after much debate, discussion and information given by selectmen, town counsel, etc., I came to the conclusion that it was probably best to vote for the article, as did the majority of voters present.
I use this issue as an example only because it represents a change of opinion based on information and debate that can only occur as it did in the town meeting forum. SB2 (the short name given to RSA 40:13) mandates two separate but equally important sessions of the "annual meeting", the first of which is for the "explanation, discussion, and debate of each warrant article" (commonly referred to as the "deliberative session"). I wonder how those same voters who cannot find a way to get to our current town meeting are going to somehow find a way to this annual meeting. Or is the ability to get a larger number of votes cast, whether informed and educated on the articles before them or not, the real goal? SB2, as enacted in our state right now, does not change the fact that we, as voters, have a responsibility to get out and attend an annual meeting where we can discuss and debate the articles before our town. It does, however, eliminate the requirement to be present for any debate or discussion that comes up in order to vote on an article before the town legislative body.
Do I think the Town Meeting as we currently employ it is perfect? No more than I think our representative democracy as a whole is perfect. But as with our state and federal forms of government, I have not yet seen anything better, certainly not SB2.
Jonathan Tolman
Moultonborough
0 TrackBacks
Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: Democracy requires effort; lets say 'no' to SB2 .
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://moultonboroughcitizensalliance.org/blog/mt-tb.cgi/140
Mr. Tolman, your contention that we individuals(as members of a legislative body) should be publicly identifiable flies in the face of the hundreds year old basic concept of the secret ballot which allows us to freely vote our private opinions.
When the voting was conducted on Article 9 last Saturday I observed that when the hand vote was taken on the amendment many people hesitated to put their hands up until they glanced around to see how others were voting. The amendment was defeated approximately 60/40 indicating approval for the original Article. The subsequent ballot vote on the Article itself, when people voted without regard to how others were voting,ie, without outside influence, 60/40 disapproval was expressed.
I believe that supports the concept of the secret ballot.
I think Mr Tolman has missed the point of SB2 entirely. The delibrative process will establish the articles and amendments prior to a general election. Any voter can attend this process and are encouraged to do so. The public will have plenty of time to review and discuss the articles prior to a vote. The change Mr. Tolman is that after the warrant is established everyone whether in person or by absentee ballot will be able to vote, in secret without fear of intimidation or “group think”.