Concord committee hears split views on private voting and electronic clickers, defers decision

The Town of Concord Town Meeting Study Committee spent the bulk of its Oct. 28 session debating whether votes at open town meeting should be public or private and whether the town should adopt electronic “clicker” voting.

Chair Eric Moore opened the discussion by summarizing survey results and listing top concerns: session length, scheduling high-interest items on a single night, the need for clearer speaker norms and improved pre-meeting materials. Moore told the committee the survey had 844 responses as of the morning of the meeting and said support for electronic voting in the packet appeared strong.

Guest presenter Scott Gillis (introduced by the chair) told the committee private ballots are a time-honored way to remove barriers to voting and that the cumbersome paper-ballot process used today discourages private voting. "Private voting respects the wishes of those who desire privacy," Scott said, and he urged the group to ask whether private voting or public voting would be more destructive to democratic participation.

Committee members and the public differed on the tradeoffs. Supporters said private voting—delivered by electronic clickers or a workable paper system—reduces peer pressure and makes some residents, including town staff and people with unpopular local views, more comfortable participating. "Voting in private is a global common value," said Elizabeth Moore (public commenter), arguing privacy can increase legitimacy and inclusiveness.

Opponents said public voting fosters transparency and civic accountability; Pamela Drake, a resident, warned that secrecy can erode public deliberation and the ability to hold officials and community leaders accountable. Several members urged care in distinguishing deliberation (public exchange of arguments) from the separate act of casting votes.

Advocates for clickers cited experience in other Massachusetts towns including Nantucket and Wayland, and preliminary survey language that linked clickers to speed and privacy; presenters and some members said clickers can reliably capture yes/no/abstain counts and produce on-screen results that could be added to official minutes. Mark Martinez, who presented comparative slides, said many surrounding towns have adopted clickers and that clickers provide data about abstentions and close margins that could inform future scheduling and outreach.

Members asked operational questions—how to treat clickers when attendees leave (would returned clickers count as abstentions), whether clickers actually save time for simple hand votes, procurement and budget questions (the moderator lacks a dedicated budget and any purchase would fall to the town manager), and whether a pilot or trial should be recommended. Several members urged waiting until the survey closes and the next-day public forum before making a recommendation.

The chair said the committee had heard substantial input and that there appeared to be growing support for allowing private voting in principle, but he postponed any formal vote. The committee plans to return to clickers and privacy at its next meeting (Nov. 12) and asked members to submit technical and budget questions to staff for follow-up.