BRATTLEBORO-Australian ballot is about inclusion. Open Town Meeting and Representative Town Meeting are not.
They automatically exclude large portions of our community — not because people don’t care, but because they simply can’t be there.
I want to tell you about my aging neighbor. She watches every Selectboard meeting on Brattleboro Community Television. She is informed. She is engaged. She cares deeply about this town. But she doesn’t have transportation, and she doesn’t have the physical stamina to sit through a 10-to-12-hour meeting just to make her voice heard.
Why should participation in democracy require physical endurance? Why would we deny her a say when a simple absentee ballot would allow her to vote from her own kitchen table?
I also want to tell you about another neighbor — a single working mother with a precarious job, struggling to put food on the table for her kids.
Asking her to take an entire day off work, risk her employment, and arrange child care just to participate in Open Town Meeting or Representative Town Meeting is not reasonable. It’s exclusion by design. She cares about this town too. She deserves a vote too.
Democracy should not be limited to those with flexible schedules, reliable transportation, financial security, or the ability to sit in a meeting all day. That’s not representative. That’s not fair. And it’s not who we say we are.
Australian ballot doesn’t silence voices — it amplifies them. It allows seniors, working parents, people with disabilities, caregivers, and hourly workers to fully participate. It meets people where they are.
If we truly believe in broad participation and equal access, the choice is clear. For these reasons alone, we should vote for Australian ballot — so that everyone can vote.
Timothy Belknap
Brattleboro
This letter to the editor was submitted to The Commons.
This piece, published in print in the Voices section or as a column in the news sections, represents the opinion of the writer. In the newspaper and on this website, we strive to ensure that opinions are based on fair expression of established fact. In the spirit of transparency and accountability, The Commons is reviewing and developing more precise policies about editing of opinions and our role and our responsibility and standards in fact-checking our own work and the contributions to the newspaper. In the meantime, we heartily encourage civil and productive responses at voices@commonsnews.org.