(3/24/07)  Every spring we hold the annual town election, where we are faced with a list of candidates for Town Meeting, and we must each decide for whom to cast our votes. 

How do we decide?

Some vote for people they know.

Some vote for people they've heard of.

Some vote for challengers, and not for incumbents.

Some vote for names that sound “diverse.”

Some vote for those recommended by a friend.

Some vote for only one Town Meeting member in a household.

Some vote for only one Town Meeting member on a street.

Some vote for those who sound most eloquent in the candidates' statements in the Bulletin. (Half are here, and half are here.)

Many don't vote at all.

Amherst's system of government is inscrutable, even to those who pay a lot of attention.  Imagine what it's like for those who don't.

So this year, we have the opportunity to use relevant data to help us make our choices:  past recorded votes from Town Meeting.  Technically, this information has long been available on the Town web site, though not in a user-friendly format.  The new Town Meeting Tally Vote Database lets anyone check the past votes of members and easily categorize and analyze them based on one's own criteria.

When launched, many saw this database as a huge step forward in providing information and accountability.  But others were not enthused, complaining that the individual votes were “misleading” and “out of context.”  That is really a criticism of tally votes in general, and is an entirely different argument.

For those who pay a lot of attention to town politics, the database is a goldmine of valuable information.  For those who don't, it isn't nearly so interesting, because one needs to know the issues and complexities around each of the votes to know the meaning of an individual “aye” or “nay,” or to appreciate any member's longer-term voting patterns.  

And so a predictable thing happened.  A group that does pay attention and knows the issues created the Sustainable Amherst web site, and used the database to measure members' voting records against a certain metric, and ranked them accordingly.  The result is an endorsed list of candidates for Tuesday's election. 

This is such an obvious and useful thing to do.  But the hue and cry of opposition has been rabid.  Terms like “Orwellian,” “divisive,” and – gasp! – “political” are being hurled about, and there is a reprisal of complaints that the voting results are misleading and out of context. 

These really are stunning arguments to be coming from such intelligent people.  To oppose the concept of voting for people based on their views, as represented by how they have voted on past issues, is tantamount to saying that you would prefer people make voting choices arbitrarily and by accident.   The idea that acknowledging disagreement on issues is “divisive” is either naïve or disingenuous.  We're not voting for prom queen – we're voting for the people who make vital decisions about the future of the town.  Wouldn't it make sense to know a bit about whom you're voting for?  Wouldn't you want to vote for those who share your sensibilities?  Isn't that what voting is all about?

Select Board races provide more insight into the candidates than Town Meeting races, as there are far fewer people and the seat is more prominent, so voters typically have more awareness when making their choices.  But the tally vote records are also useful there.  Everyone, in their heart of hearts, believes they support education, the environment, sound fiscal policy, and so forth.  But what does that really mean?  “The devil is in the details,” as the saying goes.  Candidates' voting records help fill in those details of how they define “support,” and that helps citizens make more informed choices at the polls.

Voter turnout is distressingly low, particularly for local elections.  How much of that is due to the fact that many people have very little idea of what is going on in our very complex system of town government?  Even if one has some knowledge of the actions taken by Town Meeting or the Select Board, following the votes and positions of the individuals making up those bodies has been nearly impossible.  Unless we want Amherst government to be a playground for a relative handful of “insiders,” then we should all embrace and celebrate anything that provides more information and accountability.

Sustainable Amherst was the first to add value to the tally vote data, but they should not be the last.  It would be a shame if those disagreeing with that group's conclusions preoccupy themselves with pique instead of adding more value with other interpretations.

-- Stephanie O'Keeffe