Orange County NC Website
Browse       Search
9 <br /> more detailed summary of what members identified as the positive aspects <br /> of the current method appears in the Meeting Summary for June 24tH <br /> Concerns included that the method was complicated and not understood, and <br /> that parts of the county, particularly rural areas, feel unrepresented. It allows <br /> Chapel Hill and Carrboro to dominate voters in other parts of the County in <br /> a county-wide vote. Questions 5 and 7 of Appendix L indicated the extent <br /> those who responded did not feel heard and were not satisfied with the <br /> current method of voting. It was also discussed that the current methods <br /> resulted in a funding imbalance between north and south Orange County, <br /> and that having fewer, larger districts reduced the ability for people with <br /> fewer financial resources to run for office. Questions 8 and 9 of Appendix L <br /> were cited as indicating public dissatisfaction with the current election <br /> method. <br /> • All elections at-large (no districts) <br /> Members discussed the benefits and limitations of at-large districts. Those <br /> supporting them touted how they would cover future growth by accounting <br /> for areas that have gained in population and would be based on <br /> representation of people, not land. Commissioners elected at-large would <br /> understand the interests of, and be accountable to, the whole county. It can <br /> be harder to develop and support county-wide solutions when they compete <br /> with the interests of representing a single district. At-large allows a person to <br /> vote for more than one commissioner to represent them. Arguing against <br /> Chapel Hill and Carrboro being able to capture the bulk of at-large could be <br /> viewed as a form of disenfranchisement since Chapel Hill and Carrboro have <br /> the bulk of the county population. Also noted was the support by non-white <br /> voters for at-large elections and multi-member districts (Question 8, <br /> Appendix L). <br /> Those not in favor of at-large seats cited the domination of Chapel Hill and <br /> Carrboro over the more northern and rural interests of the county, including <br /> those living in unincorporated areas. As a result, at-large elections would not <br /> increase representation of these areas. The history of using at-large elections <br /> to dilute the representation of minority interest groups, and especially racial <br /> groups, was also noted. Single member districts can avoid mixing urban and <br /> rural more effectively than at-large. <br /> 8 <br />