Paper ballots make voting easier but take away the ability to “change each other’s minds,” expert says.

By Mollie Nicholson and Emily Rodin, for the Community News Service

Since the COVID-19 pandemic, several Vermont towns and cities have shifted to using the Australian ballot, particularly for Town Meeting Day votes on municipal budgets.

Last year, 37% of municipalities used the Australian ballot to vote on budget issues, up from 28% in 2019, according to a Community News Service analysis, based on data from the Vermont Secretary of State’s office.

The number of municipalities using the Australian ballot to elect town officers and vote on public questions also increased, but by a smaller percentage: from 66% in 2019 to 68% in 2025 for town officer elections, and from 40% in 2019 to 45% in 2025 for public questions.

Traditional in-person town meetings involve voting publicly from the floor, while the Australian ballot allows voters to cast their votes privately and over a longer period of time.

Susan Clark has watched this debate play out in towns for years. Clark is the long-time moderator of Middlesex’s town meeting and coauthor of “All Those in Favor: Rediscovering the Secrets of Town Meeting and Community.”

Clark says two important competing values are at work.

“One of them is democratic quantity, like, how many people are involved,” Clark said. “The other one is democratic quality, like, what is the democracy that we are inviting people into?”

The quantity argument is clear: Casting a ballot is easier than attending a meeting. Municipalities using Australian ballot tend to have higher rates of voter participation, especially when ballots are mailed directly to voters’ homes.

“We have observed from municipal reports that universal vote by mail with Australian ballot has also resulted in high voter turnout in local elections,” said Séan Sheehan, director of elections and campaign finance at the Vermont Secretary of State Office.

Last year, seven municipalities mailed ballots to all active voters for their annual meeting. They reported an average weighted turnout of 36%, ranging from a low of 34% in Burlington to a high of 50% in Strafford, according to Sheehan.

Clark argues that focusing only on headcount misses something important. 

“When the only thing we ask people to do in a democracy is cast a ballot, that’s an impoverished view of what democracy is,” Clark said. “Town meeting is a legislature. We weigh the pros and cons together. We can change each other’s minds.”

Not an either/or question

Some towns are trying to have the best of both systems.

Two years ago at its town meeting, Jericho switched to the Australian ballot. But voters also wanted to preserve the benefits of in-person debate and input.

They developed something called “Town Meeting Reimagined.” Under the new system, a public hearing is held in January about drafting the budget, giving voters a chance to weigh in on amendments before the March ballot, Jericho Town Clerk Jessica Alexander said.

However, some information voters need, such as the details of funding requests from local organizations, isn’t available until later, when the town report is released. This leaves January participants without the full picture.

“There’s still two sides in the town,” Alexander said. “Some people are wanting to go back to the traditional town meeting, and some people are trying to make this work. But there’s a lot of challenges in bringing it forward.”

Last year, some residents showed up at the polls expecting to attend a traditional floor meeting, not realizing the format had changed entirely, she said.

“There’s no information at the polls,” Alexander said. “People need to know their information ahead of time.” 

Jericho’s experience mirrors a broader dynamic playing out in towns across Vermont. 

Several communities, such as Charlotte, debated and rejected a switch to the Australian ballot. Others, like Jericho, are trying to bring together aspects of both systems.

“Some towns have developed creative approaches to combining deliberative floor meetings for some votes and Australian ballot for others,” Sheehan said.

Clark says the shift only works if towns are willing to do the hard work of replacing what they lose.

“I worry about these communities that are switching to ballot, without necessarily taking a look at their democracy throughout the year,” she said.

Clark finds one hybrid model — electing officers by ballot but keeping the traditional floor meeting for budget and public questions — to be an effective modern adaptation.

“I think that’s actually a really healthy split,” she said. “(Voters) get to elect the executive, and you protect the ability to deliberate on the things that matter most.

“People will come to meetings that have power,” she continued. “They won’t bother going to meetings that don’t.”

Clark said it’s not an either/or question, but something more complex.

“Before towns just say there are only two options,” Clark said, “they should be exploring the incredible innovations that are happening, because we really want people to love our democracy.”

Via Community News Service, a University of Vermont internship