Mexico is the latest in a growing list of small towns in the state moving away from traditional town meetings.

A petition submitted to selectmen on Nov. 8 has been sent to the Maine Municipal Association for legal review, but its intent is clear: Those who signed it would like to fundamentally alter the way the town is governed.

Like Jay, Monmouth and a handful of others scattered around the state, the transition pits competing democratic values against one another.

Town meetings offer a civics lesson in participatory democracy. Residents gather and discuss warrant articles, hashing out compromises when necessary until the details of the next year’s budget are decided. It’s personal, up-close exposure to governance that gives every person who shows up a voice in the process. Supporters call them social events and describe a nostalgic tie to the state’s earliest days.

But town meetings can be long and tiresome. The advantage goes to organized groups that can marshal supporters for the meeting, and the shy can be intimidated out of participation. Town meetings take a commitment from the community to hash out the often difficult and controversial details of local government in public view, sometimes pitting friends and neighbors against one another. For people unaccustomed to public disagreement, the meetings can be unpleasant. And turnout shows it. In most towns, only a fraction of voters show up for town meetings.

Switching to a secret ballot almost ensures that participation will increase, though the quality of that participation declines. In Monmouth earlier this year, the number of people voting by secret ballot doubled the turnout at town meeting. In Ogunquit, the number of voters tripled. In Jefferson and Lebanon, the increases in participation have been even larger. The switch also allows for absentee ballots so voters don’t have to be present on Election Day, and it reduces the time commitment.

It also means that voters will be casting votes on issues without necessarily understanding them. While public hearings can still provide people with information on the issues, attendance at those tends to be even more sparse than at town meetings. We do not underestimate the ability of voters to gather and process information, but a warrant with perhaps dozens of questions could create voter-booth confusion.

Ultimately, the question of the quality of participation is difficult to measure.

There’s also a question of timeliness and cost. A secret ballot is quicker if everything passes the first time. But for budget questions regarding the funding of town departments, a no vote means a new measure has to be put before voters. In Monmouth this year, a June election carried over into November.

The dispute right now in Mexico is about process. Does the petition submitted to the selectmen force a referendum on secret ballots, or are there other steps that must be taken? It’s important to get the answer and allow secret-ballot proponents to move forward.

Mexico is debating a change in its governing character. That’s serious business, and it shouldn’t be rushed.