Quote:
Having grown up in a town with town meetings I see the advantage of having discussion and votes at the same time. The people voting on an issue have sat and listened to the explanations and reasoning behind each article. They can ask questions and form an opinion, and vote on an article.
If absentee voting, or voting without listening to any discussion is allowed, uninformed people will be voting on issues they may not fully understand.
The same problem happens during elections for public office. If you have ever watched interviews about current events with people on the street you understand how uninformed the majority of the population is. Yet they vote.
|
Discussion occurs at both Traditional and Deliberative sessions. People sit, listen, and ponder what they are hearing. They can still ask questions or motion alternatives, at both forms of town governance. A big difference is "traditional" must vote "now" with no way of researching what has been said. SB2 allows about a month to do research before voting. Which voter can be better informed!
"Traditional" absentee ballots don't allow for voting on
all articles. Just elections, zoning, and other articles that are stipulated by statute ... as was SB2, till 2019 when the law was changed back to the 1995 verbiage. SB2 could only be voted in by the Tuesday ballot. Now, at least there can be debate, as this petition is attempting. If there is a month to research warrant article before voting, which method is more apt to produce informed voters!
With today's internet capabilities, if someone remains "uninformed", it is probably an act of God, and not policy. Ignorance can be corrected, but not stupidity.
Voting is not limited to folks that are not stupid. However, convincing folks on policy may be an art.