Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Electronic Voting topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Concord committee debates electronic voting wording and anonymity; volunteer will rewrite questions
Summary
Committee members flagged draft survey language on electronic voting as non-neutral and potentially misleading; Carmen Reese agreed to rework the questions to make them simpler and neutral while the group weighs anonymity, legal limits and operational options.
Committee members on Sept. 10 spent substantial time on how to present electronic voting (commonly called "clickers") in the survey, with disagreements focused on neutrality and technical detail.
Cameron McKinnon said the draft opened with statements that presume electronic voting "does not offer a clear time advantage," calling that a non-neutral starting point. Phil Swain and others agreed the question should be succinct and impartial so proponents or opponents do not accuse the committee of bias.
"I don't understand, like, starting with the first sentence. Electronic voting does not offer a clear time advantage," Cameron said, urging neutral phrasing. Phil warned that wording perceived as biased could provoke critics of the clicker proposal.
Carmen Reese described operational choices that affect anonymity: clickers have identification numbers and anonymity depends on whether those numbers are linked to voter names. "Unless you link the name of a voter with a particular clicker... there's no voter tied to it unless you've done something to link the voter to it," she said, noting statutory restrictions differ for representative and open town meetings.
Committee members recommended simplifying the term "clickers" to "electronic voting" for clarity, splitting questions about privacy from questions about meeting length, and adding brief neutral context when necessary. Carmen volunteered to rewrite the electronic-voting questions (q12 and q13) and to consider wording that would describe practical implications rather than take a pros-or-cons stance.
The committee did not adopt any policy or recommendation on electronic voting; it focused on ensuring the survey frames the issue neutrally so the public can weigh trade-offs in the upcoming outreach.
Next steps: Carmen will provide revised language before the next meeting, and the committee will circulate that text for review prior to finalizing survey version 8.
