One of the prevalent catch phrases for the 2024 election is “Democracy is on the ballot” and as the election nears, it seems far from certain that democracy will prevail. After a long career in public education, I understand why voters might be disenchanted with democracy. Democratic governance is slow, highly regulated and often painfully bureaucratic.

As a school superintendent for over 29 years and a consultant for the Vermont School Boards Association for several years after I retired, I worked with hundreds of elected school board members on a wide range of issues. Throughout that time, I found that most board members understood the vicissitudes of democracy. They knew they would need to attend countless meetings to achieve consensus on contentious issues, and they realized that they would need to engage citizens who held strong and contradictory opinions. Moreover, they knew that in some cases a middle ground was impossible and they might be criticized when they made a decision that was deemed undesirable by those who sought a different resolution.

However, a few board members and some members of the public bridled at the “endless discussions” at school board meetings. They wondered why it took months to decide whether students could use cell phones in schools. Or why it took years to decide on a reading or math program. Or why it took decades to decide whether and where to build a new school.

Impatient with the deliberate pace of democratic decision-making, these frustrated participants often noted that the private sector would never tolerate such foot dragging. They believed it would be far better to put someone in charge and let them make unilateral decisions. Many who believed in such top-down leadership thought that a putting a person with a background in business in charge would be far superior to the slow-paced consensus building that is the hallmark of democracy.

As the 2024 election approaches, it strikes me that while democracy might be on the ballot at the national level, it is not in question in local and state elections. I am unaware of anyone running for mayor of any town or city insisting that “they alone” can solve the problems facing the community. Nor am I aware of anyone running for governor claiming that “they alone” can fix what is wrong with their state.

Indeed, it is hard to imagine voters in any city or town in New England abandoning democratic procedures in favor of having one individual answer such questions as where to locate affordable housing, a solar farm, a landfill or transitional housing for juvenile offenders. It is equally difficult to imagine a state political party in New England marching in lockstep behind a candidate for governor thinking that individual could provide solutions to complicated issues like tax policy, land use regulations, drug abuse or energy use.

Democracy isn’t on the ballot in 2024 for local governments because voters, like the great majority of school board members I’ve worked with, understand and accept democracy’s workings. Voters know that before their town decides on any issue, they can speak up at a public meeting and be heard by an elected official. They know that they can get on the agenda of whatever town board makes decisions that affect their daily lives and have a chance to present their thoughts. The last thing a New England voter wants is a government official making decisions in isolation or a board that denies them an opportunity to be heard.

Nor is democracy on the ballot in 2024 in either New Hampshire or Vermont. New Hampshire’s legislature is the third largest in the free world, which ensures they are well represented. And though Vermont has a smaller number of elected legislators per voter, those representatives have a well-deserved reputation for maintaining close ties to the local politics of the towns they represent. An unresponsive legislator in either state will not get re-elected, and that secures faith in democracy. Gubernatorial candidates tout their bipartisanship knowing that voters value problem solving over dogmatism.

So why is democracy on the ballot at the national level? Because, as noted above, local and state voters have a sense that they have some control over the decisions that affect them. More importantly, they have direct experience of the fruits of democracy. They eventually get their school built, their roads improved, upgrades to their emergency services and police forces, decisions on land uses and agreement on a fair and equitable means of raising taxes. State and local voters know that those elected to office will eventually find an acceptable compromise to tough issues, and when compromise is possible democracy works.

At the national level, though, compromise seems like a far-fetched dream, and when legislators fail to find middle ground on such issues as funding wars in foreign countries, immigration, health care, equal employment opportunities and income inequality voters become disenchanted and disengaged. Faced with interminable debates on intractable problems that are beyond their control, and without clear evidence that democracy works at the highest levels of government, voters seek fast, clear solutions that can be made unilaterally by someone they trust.

Winston Churchill famously observed, “Democracy is the worst form of government except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time.” History shows that when other nations faced with tough problems gave up on democracy at the national level, it hasn’t turned out well for governments at the state or local levels. We don’t need to try another form of government to learn that lesson.

Wayne Gersen is a retired school administrator. He lives in Etna.