Town hall meetings aren't working for anyone. Let's create a better way

Yahoo

21-05-2025

Should we give 'town hall meetings' a rest? Perform major surgery? Or let them die and create something better? I'm for the latter. Recent events illustrate why.
Police escorted two people from a town hall with Rep. Byron Donalds, a Florida Republican, after those attendees disrupted the session with shouted slogans. Even in normally polite Iowa, Sen. Charles Grassley was hooted and booed when he took the White House line on tariffs and immigration. Three demonstrators were detained, and two were jolted with a stun gun, after disrupting a town hall with Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene near Atlanta. Greene had mocked some of the attendees' questions and political views.
These encounters were once useful exercises, if only to demonstrate that in this current format, no one wins. Voters may come hoping to share their views, get questions answered or influence policy decisions. But they often leave disappointed. Both the crowd and elected official lob insults. The lawmaker feels attacked and misunderstood. The public feels unheard and disrespected.
These showdowns might seem like constitutionally protected expressions of the right to assemble, petition and speak. But the speech and assembly feel less free when opinions differ from the cheering or sneering majority. Silent majorities (or minorities) may choose to hold their tongues or vote with their feet, or someone will end the meeting when they've had enough of the abuse.
Beyond the flaws in format lies a deeper issue: Rarely do hosts convene these meetings before taking a vote or making a significant policy decision. Imagine your spouse, parent or roommate making a key decision about your home without your knowledge or input. That discontent pervades town hall meetings. By the time the meeting happens, it's often too late.
If the purpose of these gatherings is to allow elected officials to understand constituent points of view, that can only happen in settings that lend themselves to conversation, not shouting matches.
Let's imagine what that could look like: Voters could be randomly assigned to tables with neighbors, a facilitator and a notetaker to discuss issues while respecting conversation agreements. A member of Congress could listen to parts of each discussion, while staff members track constituent input and respond to questions. Attendees could then do a 'gallery walk' to see notes from all conversations and add stickers behind ideas they support. The congressional office team could compile and summarize the input with follow-up responses via email and social media.
Thoughtful uses of technology can help. Anonymous, real-time polling can give those afraid to speak a chance to express their views and give elected officials a more accurate read of the room. A moderated telecast enabling participants to call in or send text messages can change the dynamics. Members of Congress could also use technology to dial random constituents across the district, providing a broader array of viewpoints.
Elected officials need to ask themselves why they hold these sessions and whether they'd be better served by a different format. Whatever format they choose, they need to spend more time listening than talking.
We, the people, might need remedial training. One idea worth exploring: investment in a 'conversation corps' ― trained facilitators who make civil, civic dialogue possible in comfortable, familiar, and inviting settings.
In Austin, three public agencies teamed with a nonprofit leadership organization to train more than 100 community members. They used discussion guides to facilitate dialogue across the city in coffeeshops, libraries, theatres and beyond. Their work helped agencies hear from the entire community, not just those willing to trek to City Hall, and gave policymakers a more nuanced understanding of the public's perspective.
Meanwhile, 'bridge building' organizations such as Braver Angels, Bridge USA and Unify America are creating safe spaces for compelling dialogue across sharp differences in perspective. It will take sustained, concerted efforts by both elected officials and their constituents to achieve this.
Perhaps town halls have survived chiefly because people believe 'we've always done it this way.' But it is not the only way to enable Americans to be heard.
Larry Schooler is an assistant professor of practice at the University of Texas and a senior fellow at the National Civic League.
This article originally appeared on Austin American-Statesman: It's OK to let town hall meetings die. There's a better way | Opinion