Local  Democracy Part III

The New England Model: A Mathematical Perspective

NOVEMBER, 10, 2024 - PART III/V Understanding the complexities of society is no small feat. Unfortunately, many journalists overlook the valuable tools provided by advancements in various disciplines, opting instead for simplistic judgments and editorial commentary. Some may argue that readers don't require or can't grasp detailed information, a viewpoint that can veer into journalistic condescension.

On my view, an effective investigative journalist must embrace a commitment to thoroughness. To get closer to excellence, I obtained a master’s degree in hard sciences with a 6-coefficient mathematics and statistics. After 25 years of journalistic experience. I  considered it was a need  to adjust to the growing expectation of our audience. In this article, I intend to illustrate that my time and resources were invested wisely, and the insights gained are worth sharing.

A legal and political battle is actively taking place in New England over two distinct models of local governance. The majority of municipalities are governed by the traditional Open Meeting model, known as towns. However, as some towns experience significant demographic growth, a portion of the population demands a transition to city status. This transition necessitates a revision of the charter—essentially the local constitution—to reflect the municipality's new identity and governance structure.

The first step in launching a referendum process is to determine the minimum number of signatures required on a petition. This number is typically outlined in the charter, but it can be changed. Usually, the process begins with an initial referendum to decide the issue of the petition, which will either be accepted or rejected.

The final step is to assess whether the population supports the proposed change. This process can be lengthy and may involve several intermediary ballot questions. Some towns have successfully changed their form of governance, while others have opted to maintain their current system.

This raises the question: is this a democratic process ? Does it reflects the dominant community's will? It is important to find objective tools to gauge the interest of New England's population regarding various forms of governance.

High voter turnout is frequently regarded as a vital indicator of a thriving democracy, reflecting active citizen engagement and the health of the political system. This perception spurs both policymakers and community advocates to champion electoral reforms aimed at boosting participation rates, whether to increase overall turnout or to engage specific demographic groups that may be underrepresented.

VAP, VEP or CVAP ? 

However, while the idea of voter turnout seems straightforward, the process of measuring it is far more intricate than it appears. Even when the number of individuals who cast their votes in an election is accurately tallied, determining the benchmark for comparison can pose significant challenges. Should this turnout be assessed against the total number of eligible voters—those who meet all the requirements to vote—or should it be measured against the number of registered voters, who have taken the additional step of signing up to participate in the electoral process? Each approach can yield different interpretations of turnout rates, influencing how we understand and address voter participation in our democracy.

Turnout in elections can be measured by counting the total number of ballots cast. In the past, determining voter turnout was challenging; it often relied on the highest number of votes for a candidate in a particular office. However, an increasing number of states now report the total number of ballots counted along with election results. Despite this progress, in 2020, seven states—Kansas, Kentucky, Mississippi, Missouri, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, and Texas—did not document voter turnout.

The most straightforward comparison for understanding turnout is with the voting age population (VAP), which includes everyone aged 18 and older according to the U.S. Census Bureau. However, VAP also includes individuals who are ineligible to vote, such as non-citizens and those disenfranchised due to felony convictions. To address this issue, two alternative measures of the voting-eligible population have been developed:

1. Citizen Voting Age Population (CVAP): This measure is based on U.S. Census Bureau population estimates obtained from the American Community Survey.

 2. Voting Eligible Population (VEP): This metric is calculated by excluding felons (based on state law), non-citizens, and those deemed mentally incapacitated.

The denominator one chooses to calculate the turnout rate depends on the purposes of the analysis and the availability of data. Usually, at a national level, VEP is the most preferred denominator, followed by CVAP, and then VAP. The estimated VEP in 2020 was 239.4 million, compared to an estimated VAP of 257.6 million.

However, at a local level, collecting Voter Engagement and Participation (VEP) or Citizen Voter Age Population (CVAP) figures can be challenging. The rates vary significantly depending on the context. Key factors include who initiates the referendum and the type of topic involved. We will illustrate this complexity with a few examples.

Montpelier, Vermont: 2022 Ballot Question Initiated by the Mayor - Estimated Turnout Rate: 36%

On March 1, 2022, Article 8 was on the ballot in Montpelier, Vermont, and it was approved. The question proposed was:

ARTICLE 8: Shall the voters appropriate the sum of $4,080 as compensation to the Mayor for services for the fiscal year from July 1, 2022, to June 30, 2023? (Requested by the City Council)

Montpelier operates under a council-manager system. In this form of municipal government, an elected city council, which includes the mayor and serves as the city's primary legislative body, appoints a city manager to oversee day-to-day municipal operations and implement the council's policy and legislative initiatives.

Results of the Referendum:
- Votes:
- Yes: 1,884 (86.50%)
- No: 294 (13.50%)

The total voting age population (VAP) of Montpelier, Vermont, which includes U.S. citizens aged 18 or older, is 6,048. While CVAP and VEP figures are not available, we can use the VAP for comparison.

This results in an estimated turnout rate of approximately **36%** for Article 8 in 2023. According to the latest census statistics, 20.8% of the residents of Montpelier are aged 65 or older.

Population 2023:
- Total: 8,074 (2020 Census) - 7,991 (2023 estimate, growth rate: -0.5%)
- Ethnicity: White 94.2%, Black/African American 0.6%, Asian 2.2%, Native American 0%
- High School Graduation Rate: 97.3% (Vermont average: 93.5%)
- College Graduation Rate: 61.2% (Vermont average: 39.7%)
- Median Household Income: $65,668 (Vermont average: $63,477)
- Percentage of Persons Below Poverty Level: 4% (Vermont average: 10.8%)

Sources:
- Census Bureau Profiles Results
- Population data from U.S. Census Bureau, "Decennial Census" (2020)
- Additional figures provided by U.S. Census Bureau, "American Community Survey" (5-year estimates 2015-2020)
- City elections information for Montpelier, Vermont (2024) - Ballotpedia
- Vermont Voter Registration Data: 2008 - Present - 503,026 as of December 2024, down from 454,277 in 2008.

READ

DIRECT DEMOCRACY PART II | Provence.education.com

local democracy III | Provence.education.com

Statewide referendumn Local democracy IV | Provence.education.com

FRENCH

democratie locale texte français / democratie locale / FAQ / Services | Provence.education.com

 

 

 

 

April 4, 2017  FRAMINGHAM, Massachusets BECAME A CITY - TURNOUT 28,42%

11, 341 people cast their ballot,  

39, 910 registered voters

5,684 people opted to pass the action, while 5,579 voted against it.

Source: Official-Results-040417

Several previous attempts to change the town’s governing structure have failed, the last time in 1997.

Other former Massachusetts towns have become cities in recent years, including Braintree, Franklin,  Waltham and Weymouth

Proponents of the charter change argued that Framingham has become too large and diverse to be governed like other smaller towns.

Quote: "

WHY CHANGE OUR FORM OF GOVERNMENT

  1. Lack of transparency & accountability
  2. Mismatch for diverse, complex community with $300M annual budget
  3. Lack of community participation in elections
  4. All parts of Framingham are not fairly or equally represented in elections and decision-making
  5. Need for clear ethical standards  "

Critics worried that too much power would be centralized in the mayor’s office.

 

The tradition in danger ? 

The document "CHARTER REVISION TABLE 2010-2015.docx" provides a thorough analysis of these charter changes in small towns, demonstrating the transformative move from the Town Meetings model to a more so called effective Town Manager system. This evolution is essential for ensuring that every voice in our communities is valued and represented.Microsoft Word - CHARTER REVISION TABLE 2010-2015.docxMicrosoft Word - CHARTER REVISION TABLE 2010-2015.docx

CROMWELL passed in November 2010 -

BROOKFIELD Rejeted November  2012 -

NEW  LONDON   Passed Nov 2010 -

MADISON Make it possible for un referendum to be held to possibly hire a town manager  Rejected November 2015  Authorize extended town meeting to provide residents with 4 days following attending a Town meeting or viewing on cable access to vote on a proposed resolution.  REJECTED -

SEYMOUR Shall the next charter revision consider town manager form of govt. REJECTED November 2012 -

WESTBROOK Change to Town Manager Form of Gov’t. & Town Meeting REJECTED NOVEMBER 2012 -

WINCHESTER Allow Mayor to be apt. by Board of Selectmen November 2014 rejected

The old Town Meeting Model has evolved. Example:  adopting secret ballots for certain decisions marks a progressive shift away from the outdated show-of-hands voting method. This transition is designed to enhance accessibility and privacy in the voting process, encouraging more residents to participate—especially those who may feel uneasy about publicly expressing their opinions. Some use Zoom and electronic devices to reach young people.  In recent decades, the integration of information and communication technologies, such as Audience Response Systems, has helped the New England Town Meeting format remain relevant in the 21st-century digital age.

While the purpose of these meetings continues to be to provide an open and impartial forum for public opinion, John Gastil notes that they are less “open” than in the past. Meetings often consist mainly of stakeholders and invited guests, leading participants to “simply tell committee members what they want to hear.” Most meetings tend to see the same participants, or depending on the agenda for that evening, dedicated stakeholders and interest groups. Although Town Meetings generally follow a set schedule, Select Boards are legally required to hold a meeting if 200 citizens petition for one.

Some towns have adopted a hybrid system of governance. For example, Greenwich, Connecticut, operates under a representative town meeting model combined with a town manager to handle administrative duties. In Elmore, Vermont, a blend of traditional town meetings helps manage administrative needs while still allowing for direct citizen participation in decision-making.

The challenge is to preserve the democratic tradition that has shaped civic life while also becoming more efficient. In Canterbury, New Hampshire, the city manager oversees day-to-day operations, while the town meeting remains responsible for legislative functions. Larger cities like Hartford and Boston have shifted to a city council-city manager model.

However, it is estimated that 90% of New England's townships maintain some aspects of their original governance system, which residents take great pride in. Historian Christopher Collier has referred to this model as “the most democratic form of government one can imagine. It's the closest to the people, it involves the largest number of participants, and it's the most open.”

Despite these efforts, modern New England Town Meetings have seen a decline in attendance, primarily due to town growth and a decrease in the number and variety of political issues under local control.  In a 2003 study of over 1,500 town meetings, Frank Bryan reported 238,603 acts of participation by 63,140 citizens in 210 towns. He found that citizens will engage when they feel their participation can make a difference and when important issues are at stake. However, Bryan acknowledged a steady decline in attendance, attributed to larger town sizes and fewer issues under local control. John Gastil, in his book Political Communication and Deliberation, noted that only twenty-five percent of citizens attended a public meeting in the past year, while eighty-five percent of non-attendees indicated they had never been invited.

To address this, increasing outreach to younger demographics through social media and providing incentives like raffle prizes could help boost participation. Additionally, low civic education and unfamiliarity with deliberation contribute to low attendance rates. Gastil criticizes the quality of deliberation and the limited time for dissenting opinions. He suggests that community members should be educated on effective deliberation, and meetings should foster respectful commentary and equal voice for all participants..  Ph.W  reporting