Portsmouth's reason for eliminating the tent meeting is clear — we want decisions to represent the will of all the people — even those who, for whatever reason, are unable to spend a day sitting under a tent. In response to this, the PCC has raised the objection that full-day voting dilutes the vote, thus negating the democratic process. Here's their basic argument, and why they're wrong.

According to PCC President Larry Fitzmorris, the proposed charter change "dilutes opposition to the budget" by allowing multiple petitions. That is, you could have a petition to reduce the school budget by $500K, one to reduce it by $1M, and one to increase it by $100K.

Under Mr. Fitzmorris's theory, you could have one third of the people voting for each proposal, none would gain a majority, and no change would be made to the budget. The PCC argues that this fails to represent the true will of the majority, the 66 percent who want some reduction in the budget.

Sure, if you only allow one candidate proposal to show up on a ballot, it would be much more tidy. But our democracy doesn't work like that. The democratic process in our country — and in the Town Charter — allows for citizens to use petitions to put items to the electorate.

If you respect the right of the people to sign petitions and put proposed changes on the ballot, you must accept this. By analogy, should only one candidate with a particular ideology be allowed to run in an election? As much as the Democrats might have disagreed with Ralph Nader's decision to run, nobody questioned his right. Does this make the decision more complex? Yes. Are people still smart enough to figure out how to vote? Yes.

If you truly trust the people, just keep repeating this: Saying that only MY proposal should be on the ballot is like elections under Saddam Hussein. We believe in democracy.