by Daniel Troit

Created on: January 31, 2009   Last Updated: February 03, 2009

Why the traditional town meeting in Vermont is no longer appropriate in the current era

America has a long history of participation in direct democracy. The ability of the citizenry to take part in the decision-making process of their respective communities has been exercised in Vermont for over 200 years in the form of the Town Meeting. On the first Tuesday in March, the residents of an area are invited to come together and decide by Floor Meeting, Australian Ballot or a combination of both the affairs, actions and budgeting of their community. The local and agrarian nature of Vermont allowed its past residents the ability to participate in these meetings much more easily than our modern techno-centric and business oriented society does today.

It has been argued that the accessibility of the town meeting has diminished to include only those who are able to take the time off of work to attend or the retired and self-employed. As this demographic represents a fractional minority of the state's population, the question arises whether the town meeting continues to provide the directly democratic service it once engendered. Even with the required seven-day warning, the ability of the population to attend, much less participate in the hallowed tradition remains the biggest criticism against the appropriateness and applicability of Town Meetings.

In Vermont, both democracy and tradition are values held in the highest regard. The idea of disassembling a custom, which many see as the most apparent and emblematic of the state's democratic heritage is without surprise met with a significant amount of resistance. To eschew or replace the Town Meeting is seen by some as a relinquishing of local control and an even further removal of the participatory nature of Vermont's democracy. This resistance only serves to confirm that the value of participatory, local government remains strong in the state. The true question then seems to be one of how to best maintain the application of this value in the modern era. One must consider which is more important: the preservation of a specific custom or the preservation of a specific value?

As previously stated, both tradition and democracy are concepts that Vermont has sought to preserve throughout its long and proud history. What, then, are we to do when it seems that the preservation of a specific tradition is compromising a specific value? How are we to make the choice between the continuation of a practice that once served as the catalyst for direct democracy and democracy itself? When presented with the choice between the symbol and the real thing, perhaps it is best to ask of what use the symbol would be without the thing it is meant to represent.

If the true goal of our coming together is to create the most directly democratic forum for the whole of our citizens, then perhaps it is time for us to consider a process that allows just that. Perhaps the time has come to consider a method, utilizing technology, which would allow the entirety of our citizens' voices to be heard instead of the small minority that is able to physically attend a Town Meeting.

As they stand now, Town Meetings only serve to separate and exclude those who have just as much a right to a part of their community's decision-making process as anyone else. In the pursuit of democracy, it may be time that we look forward and transpose the Town Meeting into the realm of the Internet or something similar with discussion boards, voting software and accessibility for every voter in out community. If we continue preserve a tradition such as the Town Meeting in it's outmoded form, we are essentially saying that Vermont's symbol for democracy is more important than Democracy itself.

Learn more about this author, Daniel Troit.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.