Where was the Color [or democracy] at A16 in D.C.?

[Michael Hoover]

Chris Kromm:
> I remember talking to friends of the family in a rural town in Mass., where
> they still hold regular "town meetings" to discuss issues of relevance to
> the town. As many of you know, town meetings have a deep and long history in
> rural New England, and are held out by some as models of the "direct
> democracy" we should be aspiring to. Anyhow, I asked these family friends
> how they liked the meetings. "Nobody goes to them," they replied. The main
> reason was that a small group of people who lived for the meetings basically
> weared down those who didn't have the time to make meetings their life. Our
> family friends concluded that "a representative system would be a hell of a
> lot more democratic."

Jane Mansbridge's study of New England town hall meetings (see _Beyond
Adversary Democracy_) indicates about 20-25% attendance & conveys
reality that this type of system differs much from that which Madison
attacked in *Federalist #10*.  Moreover, evidence suggests that
economic elites dominated town hall meetings in JM's day so reality was 
different even then.  Town hall meetings neither confirm pluralists'
fears nor populists' hopes.  

Individuals with social & verbal skills can overwhelm those without such 
advantages in open forums.  Former are less likely to fear making
fools of themselves, losing emotional control, hearing criticism from 
others, and making enemies.  While these situations might express 
symbolic equality, promote egalitarian values &, at some point, 
produce substantive equality via reduction of formal leadership power &
opening of decisionmaking process, they can & do produce 
disproportionally powerful cliques & sense of exclusion among less 
influential.  Mansbridge shows how justice & fairness are skewed
and corrupted via social coercion.  

Still, town meetings have *potential* to be arenas for political debate & 
discussion as well as *potential* to sometimes articulate & implement 
'popular will.'   Michael Hoover (whose experience with consensus
decisionmaking some years ago convinced him that it is auhoritarian)