Header image of people raising their hands at a town meeting.

Summary:

Data collection from town meetings includes attendance, participation rates, issues under consideration, participation by gender and more. Dr. Bryan developed a “democractic index” which is a combination of participation and attendance. When the articles on the warning are just the routine elections and budget items, people stay home, but when an issue that people care about (renovation on the town hall, or the purchase of a piece of property) come up, more people will show up to the town meeting, increasing their score.

In 2018 we collected data from 35 towns (see summary below).

For more details and longitudinal data comparing 2018 to previous years, click on the town links below.

Real Democracy Scores:

Using this data and the formula from Dr. Bryan’s work, we calculated the “Real Democracy” score for each town. This score combines attendance and participation rates to mark how democratic the meeting was. Dr. Bryan showed in his book Real Democracy that there are many factors that contribute to this score including the size of the town, whether the meeting was held in the morning or evening, and the gender ratio of participants. But by far the largest contributing factor is the issues that are up for discussion. When the articles on the warning are just the routine elections and budget items, people stay home, but when an issue that people care about (renovation on the town hall, or the purchase of a piece of property) come up, more people will show up to the town meeting, increasing their Real Democracy score.

 

Town Quick Links:

Belvidere  |  Bridgewater  |  Clarendon  |  Elmore  |  Greensboro  |  Jericho  |  Panton  |  Proctor  |  Richmond

 

Data Overview:

Town Peak Attendance Attendance Rate* Participation Rate Real Democracy Score** 2010 Population

Belvidere

39 16.67% 71.79% 88.46

348

Benson

69 9.27% 31.88% 41.16 1056

Bolton

82 8.17% 37.8% 45.97

1182

Bridgewater

97 14.00% 10.31% 24.31 936

Bristol

103 3.64% 51.46% 55.1 3894

Charlotte

100 3.01% 45.00% 48.01 3754

Clarendon

54 2.86% 38.89% 41.75 2571

Danville

198 11.56% 12.63% 24.18 2196

Eden

82 9.48% 29.27% 38.75 1323

Elmore

86 12.29% 39.53% 51.82 855

Fairfield

103 7.77% 25.24% 33.01 1891

Fayston

81 6.80% 48.15% 54.95

1353

Greensboro

149 25.17% 20.13% 45.3 762

Hartland

165 6.28% 29.70% 35.98 3393

Hinesburg

159 4.02% 18.24% 22.26 4396

Hubbardton

36 6.69% 50.00% 56.69 706

Huntington

150 9.45% 40.67% 50.12 1938

Jay

63 17.90% 15.87% 33.77 521

Jericho

200 4.83% 23.50% 28.33 5009

Lincoln

112 10.72% 39.23% 50 1271

Ludlow

69 4.32% 37.68% 42 1963

Mendon

40 4.52% 37.68% 72.02 1028

Middlesex

176 10.90% 26.70% 37.61 1731

Panton

41 8.63% 53.66% 62.29 677

Pittsfield

52 13.87% 50.00% 63.87 546

Proctor

63 5.32% 15.87% 21.19 1741

Richmond

182 5.87% 24.18% 30.04 4081

Sheldon

80 5.29% 21.25% 26.54 2190

Starksboro

125 9.20% 30.40% 39.6 1777

Townsend

117 16.86% 32.48% 49.34 1232

Underhill

136 5.35% 36.76% 42.11 3016

Warren

175 11.75% 24.00% 35.75 1705

Westford

73 4.51% 28.77% 33.28% 2029

Weston

85 16.93% 37.65% 54.58 566

Wolcott

105 9.39% 22.86% 32.25 1676

*Attendance Rates are calculated using the number of registered voters (2016 data from the Secretary of State website) and peak attendance numbers.

**Read Democracy scores are based on attendance and participation. 

campus

For more information contact:

Richard Watts, Director of the Center for Research on Vermont

Follow us on Instagram

Student Involvement

Students help gather data and produce videos on town meeting. Lunch and mileage is paid for.

Register now

More Resources

Books and Articles