When I see the vote Yes on 1 signs posted around town that state “protect your vote,” I find it very misleading. This insinuates that voting rights are at risk.

Therefore, I went looking for an explanation about their chosen verbiage. In turn, I’ve learned that their perspective is that because councilors are “voted in” by citizens, the idea of those councilors being “challenged” with a referendum somehow negates the votes of the citizens who voted for those councilors(?). Wow. That is a stretch.

I get it. Greenfield has a representative democracy. However, how representative is it?

First, a precinct candidate only needs 50 signatures to run for a seat and most win with only about 300 votes, a far cry from the majority of the population in a precinct. In addition, sometimes a candidate runs unopposed, so voters don’t always have the option to vote for a candidate that best represents them.

Then there are the times the council gets it wrong. In 2009 they voted Yes for the biomass, yet after a referendum brought it to the voters, it was clear that citizens didn’t want it when 80% of the voters voted against it. Another example is the plastic bag ban, this wasn’t a referendum, but still a good example of when the council just “doesn’t listen’” to their constituents.

In 2015, the majority of voters voted against the plastic bag ban. Yet, our councilors (from our representative democracy) turned around and banned plastic bags anyway. I get it was a ‘non-binding’ vote, but voters spoke nonetheless. No matter how you feel about plastic use, you have to admit, this is a perfect example that councilors don’t always listen or represent their constituents.

Then there are the topics that even the council has a hard time agreeing on — the library is a good example for that. There was one council vote that held the fate of the library. After some “negotiating” about French King zoning, that vote was swayed over to the Yes side. Point is, even the council was split on that vote, therefore, it was not unreasonable to put it to the voters (taxpayers).

A referendum is the only true way to know what the majority wants. Do not make it harder for voters to have a say.

If the referendum process was being abused, I could understand people being reluctant about keeping the charter’s signature requirements as it is. However, a citizens referendum has only been used a few times in the past 18 years and voter majority had final say, so how is that a bad thing? Vote No on Question 1 to keep our referendum fair, as it has been.

Dawn Marie Morin is a resident of Greenfield.