NH Town meeting and the rule of the minority –An essay-- James Castleberry

Anne Hutchinson and Roger Williams were shunned and exiled from Massachusetts for expressing interest in Women’s and Native American rights against the majority opinion of the time.

It is a historical fact that many American historical majority ideas such as slavery are antithetical to the concepts of freedom and liberty as we now know them today. Diversity of opinion and debate has always been good for our democracy.

The other “dark-side” issue at play is as Tocqueville says “The moral authority of the majority is partly based upon the notion that there is more intelligence and wisdom in a number of men united than in a single individual.”

Simply put the opinions of the majority make them automatically superior. This follows out of the Calvin notion that power, prestige, association and wealth may be outward manifestations of “election”. Opinions expressed by the majority make them somehow better than the minority opinions.

While we New Englanders long ago separated the function of government from the Church we have not separated the rhetorical techniques of the Calvin church from the way we conduct our business of government.

It is these two theses;

1)      Minority opinions expressed openly open one up to criticism, obloquy, persecution and possibly retribution.

2)      Motivation to resist the will of the majority in Town Meeting due to individual needs (i.e. lack of money) open one to, name calling, shunning and social retribution.

I don’t think we need to elaborate on all of the permutations of the consequences of these arguments in practical terms as we all feel them.

Due to the nature of these dark-side consequences of majority rule, and fear of expressing one’s opinion, attendance at Town Meetings is at or near historical lows.

The institution of Town meeting is in reality has become a de-facto MINORITY governing body.

To illustrate this point, in 2007: 1307 out of  3800+ registered voters, voted in the secret ballot  general elections in the Town of Moultonborough, less than 361 attended and voted in Town meeting on the first day, less than 107 showed up for the School meeting the second day.

With 361 people attending Town meeting, a simple majority of 181 people can determine large scale decisions for the entire Town.  This is a stunning reality. One hundred-eighty one people can control the capital outlay and direction of a town, with a registered voter base of 3800. Along with this power they control a potential tax base of 3 Billion dollars in order to fund their pet projects. This startling conclusion is the prima-facto reason that there is such boisterous opposition to the SB2 ballot initiative by the Board of Selectmen, Town Moderator and special interests in the town.

In short he Town Meeting has become the favorite place for special interests to impose minority positions with the underlying legitimacy of Majoritarianism and the associated history of the Town meeting.

Karel Crawford the current Chair of the Moultonborough Board of Selectmen echoes these ideas in her own words in this week’s letter to the editors of the Meredith News.

Her notion of governance is based on elitist notions that only the most motivated minority of the electorate should have its will inflicted upon the majority of citizens. So much for inclusion, egalitarianism and democratic principles, as the ends justify the means with this way of thinking.

SB2 to the rescue?

The SB 2 form of government was instituted by the state legislature in 1995 because of concerns that modern lifestyles had made it difficult for people to attend traditional town meetings.  Residents vote in an SB 2 election at a polling place throughout the day. They may also vote by absentee ballot. Municipalities that have adopted the SB 2 form of government may switch back to the traditional town meeting form by a 3/5 majority vote.

Under SB 2, a first session, called a "Deliberative Session," is held about a month prior to the town election. This session is similar in many ways to the traditional town meeting. However, unlike the town meeting, while the wording and dollar amounts of proposed ballot measures may be amended, no actual voting on the merits of the proposals takes place. The second session, held on a set election day, is when issues such as the town's budget and other measures, known as warrant articles, are voted upon. These votes take place by secret ballot.

It is secret ballot that eliminates the “dark-side” issues I have outlined, and therefore corrects the historical inequities of the Town meeting which have restricted attendance and thwarted the will of the majority.

The arguments coming from the current administration here in Moultonborough against the SB2 initiative are not surprising at all when put in the context of the two dark side issues previously outline in this essay. Whether subconsciously or cognitively the current Town Moderator and Board of Selectmen have fallen back to the very rhetorical tools inherited from the Calvinistic, Majoritarianism history of the town meeting. Supporters of SB2 should expect more name-calling, superiority and shunning techniques as these are the most powerful rhetorical tools of the opponents of SB2.  I urge voters to reject these rhetorical techniques and to recognize and discard these arguments.

It is time bring back majority rule to town governance.

The best argument that SB2 has is a more inclusion and more participation. Justifying minority rule due to tradition and history are not good enough arguments to bring town meeting back in line with its original inclusionary foundations.