Here's a quote I found in
www.democracyfornewhampshire.com, written by paul 01/17/2007
......................................
I agree with Cosy - SB 2 is an improvement. For 20 years starting in 1973 I lived mostly in Amherst and Milford and recall the Town Meeting approach as quaint and in its' way charming...but dominated by the few, and subject to intimidation and manipulaton. And decisions were made by an appallingly small percentage of town residents.
The notion that traditional Town Meeting participants are better informed, and thus better able to reach the right decision may sometimes be true. But this is still the rule of minority. And often the winning decision isn't necessarily that of the "informed": winners are often "townies" or residents who have been in town the longest, or those who have a strong attachment to a position or benefit from it, or those who can pack the hall with supporters. I recall a case where nursing homes were emptied and seniors bused in, by a well organized effort over a school issue, that blocked many citizens from access to the hall.
The fundamenal principle of our Democracy is that each American has the right to cast a vote. The constitution does not say "an informed vote" and often we pay the price for a poorly informed, misled, or apathetic electorate. The proper way to address this is to engage the electorate, not to hope that they don't turn out - or worse, erect barriers.
We should always support methods of Democratic decision making that permit and encourage the most citizens to participate. Traditional Town Meeting has many barriers to participation that SB 2 tears down. The requirement that one be present at a particular date and time to vote; that one must endure long and uncomfortable meetings; that one must stay to the end lest something happen after most people have left, subverting the will of the majority; that one's opinions and votes are not necessarily confidential; that one can be subject to harrassment and intimidation and that due to constrained facilities and fire codes, only a small portion of the electorate can physically participate.
The voting machine issue is a seperate topic. I am deeply concerned about them as anyone. But the first principle is to let people vote. How we count the votes is a vitally important detail, but it cannot subvert the principle.
We can find appropriate ways to count under SB 2. That issue should not be a barrier to the benefits of SB 2 for more communities.
..............................