Quote:
Originally Posted by TheProfessor
That is exactly what SB2 does.
More participation in voting.
Currently, it is more cliques or clicks that wish to control the assests of the town. Those cliques or clicks don't want more to vote. Those cliques or clicks want less to vote. So that their pet projects can get enacted. And property taxex go up for all for the benefit of the few.
More allowed to vote is better than less allowed to vote.
Thomas Jeffereson: 1792
|
I find it interesting that the complaint is town meeting is too cumbersome/inconvenient/hard/scary or what ever the impetus is for those who want to pass sb2, yet what sb2 does is insert more bureaucracy into the equation and limits discussion at the most important meeting, where people come to vote and it opens the process up to more potential for "cliques" to have their way.
It requires two meetings instead of one. How is that more efficient?
It requires a ballot vote, apparently with absentee ballots and most likely early voting. Both added burdens on infrastructure and personnel.
Those absentee/ early ballots are not simple one page affairs. There were about 40 items on this warrant. Ideally if they were put to a ballot, to be useful each question would require a paragraph describing what it is, then a pro and con paragraph or two for the questions. These of course would be summaries, with no opportunity for the voter to address inconsistencies or misinformation. No opportunity to hear new information.
Two meetings-- the main complaint of sb-2 proponents is that the town meeting is too long, too cumbersome, to inconvenient to attend. So what is the sb-2 solution? Add a second meeting! Who came up with that idea? I imagine the original conversation went something like this: "We, the sb-2 originators, have heard you, attending town meeting is difficult and inconvenient, so we have a great solution, we'll add a second meeting to the town meeting. You'll have to come twice to be fully informed, it will be great. Science and statistics!!!" Makes me laugh every time I think about it.
Cliques/special interests are a fact of life in politics. SB-2 gives those groups more power because of the ballots, absentee and early voting opportunities. Ballots can be harvested with relatively little effort. I firmly believe that had SB-2 gone through, a vote on a HUB like project would have been a sure thing next year, a little more effort on the proponents part to gather votes would have paid off grandly for them.
Finally, more votes. I think people get confused when they say more votes are a good thing. More participation is a good thing. People who actively research, think about an issue then cast a vote are a good thing. People who don't want to spend the time, look to short circuit the process at every turn, fail to read up and educate themselves, think that the latest fad (sb2) is a panacea, are the easiest fooled when that ballot comes around.