That's the dilemma of single-member-district voting and staggered terms. District 5 is one of the more affluent districts, so it has attracted a surplus of candidates while a less affluent district, such as District 6, attracts fewer challengers. District 3 is also an affluent district but is not yet contested.
A push for minority representation on City Council produced this situation. Although at-large voting had elected two African-Americans to City Council (A.P. Coleman and Gwen Burton), the federal Voting Rights Act favors majority-minority districts, which virtually guarantee minority representation, and the city switched to single-member districts in the 1980s. Three districts are white-majority and three are black-majority with one district, District 6, closely divided between the races. The only official elected citywide is the mayor.
Wilson is nearly evenly divided by race with minorities holding a slight edge in population. But changing back to at-large elections is politically unfeasible. Although some council members will say privately that they'd like to see at least some at-large districts (Raleigh, for example, uses a mixture of at-large and single-member districts), there has never been a serious effort to change the election law, which would have to be approved by the U.S. Justice Department.
A change to three at-large districts and four single-member districts (two white-majority and two black-majority) would increase voter clout and offer candidates more options — they could seek either an at-large or a district seat. My guess is that, depending on which candidates run, Wilson would end up with four white and three black council members, the same split we have now, but a black-majority council would be possible. The biggest advantage to this scenario is that the at-large candidates would have to appeal to both black and white voters. (Changing to concurrent rather than staggered terms — i.e., every seat is contested every two or four years — would give voters a chance to turn out the entire council in one election.)
That's not going to happen, least of all this year. The three challengers in District 5 are good news for incumbent Donald Evans. An incumbent enters an election with an advantage in name recognition and electoral experience. A challenger has to give voters a reason to not vote for the incumbent. When multiple candidates divide the anti-incumbent vote, guess who wins. If, however, those three District 5 challengers were scattered among at-large districts, one or more of them might win.
Until four members of City Council see an advantage in changing to at-large elections, change will never happen. Because district elections work to incumbents' advantage (see above), that's not likely to ever happen.
4 comments:
Thanks for this analytical observation.
However, your blog is boring when you do not let people speak their mind.
"City Council incumbents like status quo"
Yeah (almost) everyone has noticed. Hence, we have all the reasons we need.
"District 5 is one of the more affluent districts, so it has attracted a surplus of candidates while a less affluent district, such as District 6, attracts fewer challengers."
That's a particularly disturbing hypothesis. And, the unnecessary and numerous references to black and white, and who appeals to whom is really archaic.
"...Advantage in name recognition blah blah blah..." The real problem has been that not enough people get out and vote.
anony2 said:
"That's a particularly disturbing hypothesis. And, the unnecessary and numerous references to black and white, and who appeals to whom is really archaic."
Only to those who choose to turn a blind eye to reality. Black and white are issues.....just ask the naacp, the most racist of all organizations.
If I may moderate this dispute a bit: My numerous references to race, as stated by Anony2, were based on the law of the land, which makes race a factor in election laws, prescribing "majority-minority" electoral districts. It's the law, and it's impossible to discuss electoral changes in the places (including Wilson) covered by the Voting Rights Act without referencing race. Anony3 is right that "black and white are issues," but I disagree with the statement that the NAACP is racist. It is race-conscious and in some ways perpetuates racial differences, but I don't think you can look at American history and say the NAACP has not been a positive force. Its role in ending segregation was lawful, cautious and patient. Nor can you deny that other organizations — the Ku Klux Klan, the Aryan Brotherhood and others — are far more racist. Racism is defined as a belief that some races are superior or inferior to others. The NAACP does not take that position; white power groups do.
Post a Comment