The Bennington evening banner. (Bennington, Vt.) 19??-1961, 1911-01-20
The small Town" Argument

ed the bill The Republican machine
in the Green Mountain state remains
needless TO the warnings as to the
present temper of the people At this
rate even Vermont will soon go Dem
ocratic.-Portland Eastern Argus.
The party was not specifically pied
ged to the passage of a direct prim-
airy law. But it was pledged to eau
Gus reform, and in the present tenn
per of the people of Vermont, the dir
ect primary more nearly meets their
demands for a change than any other
scheme that has been or is likely to
be proposed. The direct primary bill
was defeated largely through a mis-
understanding, not to say ignorance.
Influence brought to bear upon the
average lawmaker that has not stud
led the scheme out for himself would
not have to be very subtle or very
powerful to persuade him, temporarily
at least, that there was a Joker in
this bill. The Joker" this time was
said to be the weakening of the pol
itical power of the small towns.
1t is one of the miseries of Vermont
politics that the "smal towns we
have with us always. ANY time any
politician gets hard up for a leglti-
mate argument against proposition
he carefully circulates the suggestion
that it will in some mysterious man
ner take something from the small
towns" And as most of the towns
in Vermont are small, and as they
have to buck up against the fearfully
disproportionate rivalry of towns av-
eraging from 5000 to 10000 inhabi-
tants, with only one that barely
scores 10000 it may be seen at once
that this small town argument is a
maryellously logical thing.
But, apart from all that, even, the
appeal to the fear and the prejudice
of a small" town against larger
neighbor to defeat a measure designed
for the public good on the merely sell
fish ground that the achievement of
the public good may not be to the
distinct advantage of locality, is
absolutely indefensible in logic. If
it is true that this is a popular gov
eminent, If it is what Lincoln called
a
people, for the people, then 1t does
not make any difference whether the
people live in small towns or large
towns, or dwell man by man alone on
the mountain sides, so long as they
have adequate and proportionate re-
presentation in the making and ad-
minstering of the laws that govern
them. There is nothing in a locality,
nothing in a mere town charter, that
gives it any right to be heard in the
government. 1t is the people that
live in that locality, the people that
live under that charter, that have the
right to voice in government. But
They have no right to anything
more than proportionate voice. More
people living somewhere else have the
right to outyote them-if-
This is actually land where the
majority of surveyors town lines
rules
And yet We hear this persistent APP
peal Of the demagogue or the selfish
ly interested, land some sincerely
disinterested besde), that II is seen
cry that should have the right to vote
and not the human beings that live
In II, and that a certain landscape
should have so many votes In the max
ing OF laws or nomination OF public
office, for instance, whether anybody
lives in II or not
What interests do the people that
live in small towns have in free gov
eminent that the people that live In
large towns do not have too?
Where is the logic in this small
town argument? Who can defend
it? Is this actually government "of
the people or is 1t a government OF
geography?
But, taking our friends Of the
small town" argument on their own
ground, let us see how their argu.
ment against the direct primary sys.
TEN will work out. So far from work.
ing TO the detriment Of the small
town, 1t would actually work to the
benefit of the minority Of people in
the polls anywhere, small town OF
large town. Indeed II comes very
near giving something like the minor,
ity representation that some authori
ties on civics insist will come one
of these days.
Under the present caucus system
delegates favoring such and such a
candidate for nomination for a public
office may be sent from any town
large or small, by mere majority
Of one in the caucus vote. And gen
orally the caucus vote is but a very
small part OF the vote of the tow
itself. because the voters have Ions
ago begun to distrust caucuses anC
stay away from them, more or less
unless some unusual issue is raised
BY the present block method of re
presentation in party political con
ventions OF delegates apportioned e
towns under an arbitrary and mo-
strictly numerically representativ,
plan and elected by narrow margins
at that, and these combinations car
name, the governor OF Vermont, ant
yet be actually representative OF bu
n small fraction OF the people. AL
the minority vote in each town Il
lost-and illogically, too, because IN,
town Is not voting for Gown oflc,
but for a state officer, and a state to
tai and not the largest part Of 2i'
separate town totals should choose
him.
Under n direct primary system, IN,
minority vote In each town would b,
carried over to swell the total OF th'
same vote, majority or minority II
each town. And the majority OF IN,