BRATTLEBORO-For the past few weeks, many Representative Town Meeting (RTM) members have argued for restricting the vote. It’s not surprising: Power always wants to justify itself.
They say they are better informed, more engaged, and represent those who cannot speak for themselves. I’ve even heard a few people say that others just don’t care as much as they do.
These arguments are not only unconvincing — they are condescending.
Brattleboro’s voters are fully capable of understanding the issues that affect their taxes, their infrastructure, and their community. Go out to the laundromats, ask service workers, check in with working-class Brattleborians to see if they have an opinion. You might be surprised that their voices are varied, considered, and informed. Just ask.
Keep in mind: the representative system itself is broken: Residents have no idea how their “representatives” vote. At every other level of government, voting records are public and accessible. Under RTM, there is little transparency. You can vote in a name, but not their record. That’s neither representative nor fair.
Even more troubling is who gets shut out. RTM demands hours — sometimes days — of in-person participation. Working parents, shift workers, caregivers, people with disabilities, and seniors cannot always rearrange their lives to sit through marathon meetings. Their exclusion is built into the structure itself.
“One Person, One Vote” is a demand for broader participation. It is a call to trust the people of Brattleboro enough to let them vote directly on the decisions that shape their lives.
Democracy does not belong to a select group privileged with time. It belongs to all of us. If we truly believe in equity and inclusion, then we must open the process and let every voter have a direct voice.
As a lifelong Democrat, I say it’s time to practice democracy and trust the voters.
On Tuesday, March 3, vote yes to discontinue RTM, vote yes to approve Australian ballot, and vote no to open Town Meeting.
Jan Therese
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.