Last week I noticed that something quite foul has invaded my yard. No, no, its not a neighbor’s doggie bomb, or a repugnant colony of insects. In fact it is something called a Stinkhorn, a member of the mushroom variety, with a scientific name of Phallus impudicus. I am not making this up.
This mushroom, with its slimy green cap, smells quite foul and, how jolly, attracts flies from quite a distance to spread its foul ordure and spores about my property. Additionally, its rather profane shape apparently caused a female relative of Dr. Freud to break them herself rather than chancing that her young maids might happen upon one of these suggestive mushrooms.
I am hopeful that one day I can eradicate this stinky neighbor. (Gardeners, please send in your tips). But I have to say, these stinky, profane mushrooms made me think of something else quite different in this town… voter apathy.
Bear with me here, I’m not going for another voter soapbox (well, not entirely another soapbox). With a population of nearly 31,000 and 18, 722 registered voters I was chagrined to learn only 481 registered voters came to the Special Town meeting last week. So, while a hair over 60% of the population is registered to vote, only 1.6% of the population or 2.7% of registered voters bothered to make an appearance at the meeting.
Granted, turnout is lower for autumn special town meetings, but they aren’t often much bigger. In fact the only town meeting I remember being dramatically bigger was the blowout a few years ago for the mall where shuttle busses were needed to help take residents back and forth from distantly parked cars.
Still and all, something stinks about such low voter turnout. I confess, I grew up in a town with a slightly smaller population and a ‘city’ designation. I do not think Tewksbury is city, even though under Massachusetts Law any community over 12,000 may become a city. Some even become cities technically but are still named “Town Of ….”
Perhaps its time for Tewksbury to consider better ways of town management. I am not advocating against our Board of Selectmen, many of whom I bump into regularly at different town-wide functions. I am not advocating against our town manager. What I am saying is that, with such rampant voter apathy, a reasonable parity cannot be achieved when only 3 percent of voters actually vote.
For any article to pass, all a sponsor needs to do gather troops and march down to the high school and vote. Place your article strategically on the warrant and bring enough friends and supporters and passage is all but guaranteed. In some cases not all 3% vote for the same thing. So, decisions affecting the lives and pocketbooks of homeowners throughout Tewksbury can be made by very small groups.
On one hand, I appreciate the simplicity and honestly of open town meetings, where every resident can stand up and let loose a tirade about any article before the whole body votes on the subject. In this scenario, those that want passage or defeat of an article badly enough will show up.
On the other hand, I am not sure I believe in a “you snooze, you lose” sort of government where such few numbers are needed to pass occasionally major articles.
In some towns voters can elect representatives for town meetings. Those representatives attend town meetings and can still debate the articles and vote, but on behalf of larger blocks. Plus, with a representative system based on voting districts, in theory all registered voters would be represented.
I still like going to town meeting and seeing the issues debated on the floor. With so few people coming to town meetings regularly we can often zip right through many articles, which speaks to my admiration of efficiencies.
But our population will continue to grow. Apathy and I hope I’m wrong, will likely increase too. I’m not sure if making any changes is the right thing to do, but its time to open that dialogue and begin discussions about what is right for our town, and our pocketbooks. Voter apathy stinks, worse than those nasty stink horns in my yard.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
6 comments:
You just re-invented representative democracy, which is the classic solution to the voter apathy issue AND the size of the consistuency issue.
It's marginally better than rounding up voters at gun point or under threat of fines to force them to vote... and it concentrates and institutionalizes the exploitation of voter apathy by the passionate/extreme or the pandering/clientelist/corrupt.
I salute the fact that you care, but even school boards, where many franchisees care quite a bit about the issues, have this problem and there are no good solutions short of a vital tradition of citizenship.
Man, I'm all depressed now, and I don't even have the vote in this country!
Constituents, constituents, constituents... seesh
There is a name for a "representative democracy" it's called a republic and it is what this nation is ..we are NOT a democracy; though liberals like that pluralistic term. Consequently town meetings are counter to the republic form of governing. Also I have never agreed with the old turn out the vote mindset. Do any of us really want people who are going to vote against us to go to the polls!? I know I don't. I belong to a sportsmen's club. It is owned by the members. We have 320 acres of land, a 5 acre pond, several buidings, and more than a quarter of a million dollars in investments. We have +/- 500 members and I've seen years when our membership went down below 100. What happens if drops to one? Does s/he inherit all that land and wealth? I was on the governing board for 12 years and like most organizations it's always the same few who do all the work. Some board members would complain that so few members get involved and I would always say so what that allows those of us who are involved to do things our way instead of having to compromise . Compromise solutons are like moderate politics. It makes no one happy. I only want the voters who think like I do to turn out. We get what we desreve for government. A big city police chief once commented that any city will have a crime rate no higher than what it's citizens will tolerate. And so it is with government. We will have the government we want, or the government we are too lazy to change....either way, it's what we deserve.
Lee.
Pure democracy is a beautiful thing, I love seeing it in action. And yet, it really bothers me when one group manages to work a vote, something that's happened in Tewksbury a few times recently. There's much detail in the minutiae. And still, Lee, of course I agree with you. I don't want other people voting against stuff I care about. And yes, lower voter turnout is traditionally good for Republicans. Definitely we get exactly the government we deserve.
Matt, I agree with yourcomment that a vital tradition of citizenship is key to getting more people involved...Unfortunately more people are interested in un-"reality" television than their government, and then all bellyache about a) the outcome or b) that they are not receiving enough entitlements.
Hi again Jayne!
In re-reading my post I think I need to clarify a point. A republic far surpasses a democracy as a preferable form of government for the very reason our founding fathers chose it.... because it prevents the majority from constantly imposing its will on the minority. This is the very issue which stalemates emerging nations like Iraq. The Suni and Shiite Muslims hate each other and one is clearly a minority. So they know full well that under a democratic government they will always be outvoted and therefore will for all practical purposes have no say in governing Iraq. That said, it is somewhat of a paradox that a republic form of government is formed through a democratic process.
I'm still trying to get the hang of this blog thing.
Post a Comment