We have an amazing opportunity in Carrboro over the next 18 months. When as many as six positions on the Board of Aldermen could be up for grabs. Beginning with the Special Election on March 19.
If anyone, including your preferences, truly wants to serve, they will have more than ample opportunity. So, let’s use these series of Elections to do more than just engage in Carrboro politics as usual.
Let’s use these next 18 months to encourage the widest, broadest and deepest conversation possible about the state of our town, and the direction in which it is heading.
In that regard, I have a challenge to all those who make up the political establishment in Carrboro. Stand back. Let the people have that conversation. Without imposition by you. Let them make their own choices. Without direction from you.
Do not nominate, do not endorse, do not lobby, do not campaign. Do not close ranks to anoint an heir. Rather, step back. And encourage as many different people as possible, with as many different views as possible, to nominate themselves as candidates. And then campaign, only for themselves.
So that we can all encourage the most open debate possible about the future of our town. Without any in positions of influence giving any indication as to preference. So that the people of Carrboro can hear, can ask, can decide, without feeling they are being railroaded in any particular direction.
To those organizations which normally endorse, I say this: send out your questionnaires, hold your forums, publish the results. And then leave it at that. Let the people make up their own minds.
To the rest I suggest this: hold your tongues, and your pens. No letters to the media. No posts on blogs in support. Please move out of the way, and create space for those whose voices are not normally heard; let them ask their questions, let them create the conversation, rather than the ‘professional’ talking heads.
Carrboro prides itself on being a progressive town. So Carrboro, let’s demonstrate progress with the democratic process. Let’s give it back, lock, stock and barrel, to the people. Vox Pop in Carrboro.
[This is sort of a companion piece to my earlier note on 'Establishment' in Carrboro - http://www.orangepolitics.org/2012/12/carrboro-alderman-vacancy.]
Issues:
Comments
Great ideas - I'm sure Carrboro's ready to spread its democratic wings this way. I sure hope so - well put.
Carrboro – let’s get down to some real democratic action. The
representatives you have elected in the past have been mere figments of
democracy. They have been elected without the real citizens weighing in. Do you want to live in a town in which the actual
voters have their say over the people who can’t get their shit together to
actually vote? Outrageous! If someone chooses to participate in an actual election,
they are nothing less than a bully who wants to see the majority view recognized.
So, for the love of Carrboro, if you care about Carrboro & want to vote for
a representative, DON’T DO IT. You will be blocking the expression of those who
have chosen not to participate. And that is undemocratic!
is already wide open. Participate or not. Are you kidding me? You or someone else is going to judge whether or not my participation is useful based on some vague bullshit? I want more participation just like you do. So participate more. I would never ask for people to parrticipate less. If you don't participate, somebody else will likely participate more. That's democracy & that's life. Feeling like you don't like what local democracy has produced? Step up and show some energy. Or, if impotence is your thing, try to convince active citizens to be less active.
I think the true essence of leadership would be about 75% of what Geoff suggests. Let candidacies flourish, encourage participation, don't close off newcomers with early endorsements. Yet suggesting that everyone "...then campaign, only for themselves..." leaves any sense of community out of the process. The whole process of campaigning and politics should be COMMUNITY enggagement, not atomization. Carrboro now has over 15,000 registered voters in 7 precincts (yes, that's correct). It's not the tiny community with 2,000 registered voters where progressive voters allied together in the late 70's to bring community control. In the end in a community like Carrboro levels of community involvement vary widely, political scientists will tell you that "cueing" is an important part of the political process, where people turn to friends and organizations with more knowledge of the process, persons, and issues for recommendations.
I admire your desire to include more people in local political processes, but our local elections generally produce turnout of under 20%. Some years it has been as low as 13%, I believe. Based on these numbers alone, asking people to REDUCE their participation seems like a recipe for even worse turnout. Fewer and fewer people voting is many things, but it is not vox populi.The barriers to participating in democracy here are frankly, quite low. Anybody can post on this website for free. Anyone can speak at a public meeting. Anyone can post a flyer on a telephone pole or dumpster. Anyone can share their views at the Farmer's Market on Saturday mornings. Anyone can write a letter to the editor of the Chapel Hill News. The cost to file as a candidate for this special election is, I am not kidding, $10. This is 2/3rds the cost of a haircut without a tip at Friendly Barber. Wall Street-purchased democracy this is not. Running and losing is often a great first step to running and winning. That's how Barack Obama got started. If you know someone who has something to offer who is not of the "political establishment" that concerns you, and they are willing to serve, then find $10 and get them on the ballot.
I've paid someone's filing fee twice. Back in 1973 when I was already running for Chapel Hill Council I sat in two classes next to Pete Beswick, a fellow 2L at Carolina Law School. Pete, who lived in Carrboro, constantly complained about the Carrboro Board of Aldermen. I mean CONSTANTLY. I finally told him to STFU and gave Pete $5 for his filing fee and told him to run himself. He did and won. In 1972 I paid the filing fee for an AppState senior Steve Metcalf to run for Watauga County Commissioner. Steve lost by 50 votes. After grad school he eventually ran and served as State Senator for several terms in Buncombe County. So yes, pay people's filing fees !
Geoff says "has it ever occurred to you that one of the reasons turnout is so low is that folks locally feel there is no point standing in an election because the pack is stacked against them?"actually I think turnout is low because Carrboro has a huge number of low-information voters who registered to vote and participate in higher-level elections. Reducing the noise level as you suggest will depress turnout even further. Having campaigns be just the candidate and maybe their friends won't cross the information/activation threshold of these voters. Now, again, I agree completely that the "establishment" should NOT discourage new and fresh candidates (or even recycled candidates who dropped out of the process)
Can you cite so much as one example of what you are talking about?
Most years there are three or four candidate forums. I've never seen anyone denied an opportunity to participate. I've never seen any particular bias in any of the forums either - unless it is "biased" when the Chamber of Commerce asks about business issues (or when the Sierra Club asks about environmental issues).
Maybe you should actually attend some of these forums so that you will know what you are talking about.
"Do not nominate, do not endorse, do not lobby, do not campaign."
If this is not telling people not to participate, I don't know what is. You are using your free speech to ask others to curtail their right to the same.
Local election cycles are composed pretty much of everything you list in the sentence above. Take those activities away and other than the act of actually running for offce, there's very little left in terms of chances to be involved.
I understand what people mean when they say that they feel like there are "insiders" here. What I've come to realize over time is that being "IN" or "OUT" of the community consensus is often issue-specific, and that the people who show up generally get credit for doing so, even if there is disagreement on an issue.
I've also learned that to be involved at a level where you feel like you're having an impact takes an actual time commitment and a willingness to sit around one or more tables with people you don't necessarily agree with, sometimes for many months, and be decent to each other.
The claim that other people participating is "blocking your way" in a place where even non-US citizens can run for the town board for $10 doesn't ring true to me.
Maybe your posts on OP never get promoted to the front page because they never deserve much attention. Certainly this one doesn't.
You imply that the only genuinely grassroots democracy in North Carolina is secretly some sort of Stalinist conspiracy. That's far from the case. Any Carrboro resident with $10 can run. And a diverse group of candidates usually do.
Looking back as far as 2003, Carrboro has had 18 different candidates for the Board of Aldermen, of whom 10 won and 8 lost (56% won and 44% lost). These candidates break down as follows:
8 female candidates, 63% of whom won vs. 50% of male candidates won.
4 Jewish candidates, 75% of whom won vs. 50% of non-Jewish candidates won
2 Hispanic candidates, 50% of whom won vs. 50% of non-Hispanic candidates won.
3 African American candidates, 67% of whom won vs. 53% of white candidates won.
1 homosexual candidate, 100% of whom won vs. 53% of straight candidates won.
1 candidate with an overt disbility, who did not campaign and lost.
All of which adds up to the conclusion that local democracy in Carrboro is actually pretty darn diverse.
The only group that seems to have done poorly in Aldermen races are those whose campaigns angrily denounced Carrboro town government. There have been four of those sort of candidates and all four of them lost.
Who has been annointing candidates?I haven't heard about any such thing and I observe these things in a lot of detail.
As someone who is not an insider, it seems to me that the Independent endorsements come close to an "annointing." Of course, I may be one of the low information voters who, if I didn't have the Indy, would not vote. On the other hand, when I have become involved (in school board elections), I have felt some of the frustration that Geoff is voicing. If you don't get the Indy endorsement, it is extremely hard to get elected. And, at least when it comes to the school board, their endorsements are often not well researched or reasoned.
I would agree with Jan's point that there are certain essential endorsements that one needs to run for office, but I think that is not the case with getting involved. The endorsement of Indy Week is a barometer for the leanings of our local community, but that type of dynamic exists in every community at a local, state and national level. Because Carrboro and Chapel Hill are smaller communities, I think that this feeling of insiders/outsiders is magnified, and I agree with Jan that it exists with running for Alderman or TC. Having said that, I think that Chapel Hill and Carrboro provides ample opportunity to get involved in your local community, which I think most would agree is a great stepping stone to being elected or appointed to local government. As an "outsider" I have been very pleased with the willingness of most anyone I approach to discuss local issues and help open the conversation to other groups. The only group that I think is at an inate disadvantage is students that are involved and try to bridge the gap. Lee's candidacy and involvement has done wonders for the town/gown relations in our community, but there's still work to be done.
People who support candidates should support candidates they support. Supporters of candidates who did not win in the last couple of elections should try again if they want to. Newcomers should run and their supporters should get involved in all ways possible. That's the way local democracy work.Everything else is bullshit manipulation tactics.
Anonymity can be a symptom of courage and conviction but in many cases people just want to minimize indent flying information as much as possible on this Internet beast. Just knowing a name and the fact you live in orange county and with a couple of clicks on the Orange county web site you can find a wealth in information about where you live what and what you own. More than enough to begin a process I'd identity theft. Please don't assume people are not courageous ra have conditions when posting anonymous but may fear having their indents stolen causing grief beyond anything we can imagine.
So name some names of those who "hold the reins". Or should they remain "Anonymous" in this creative plea for some folks to dial down their civic involvement? Also, when does someone who is perceived to "hold the reins" that agrees to this unique suppression of participation idea receive a signal from the politically correct arbiters of the scheme that it is okay to beging participating again?It gets complicated and seems predicated on some sort of conspiracy theory. It's balderdash bordering on horsefeathers.
Had two 20-something Carrboro residents as houseguests here in Raleigh this weekend. Polled them. They had no idea that there was a special election March 19. They had not heard of the Board of Aldermen. Only one of them is registered to vote in Carrboro (she's there for 8 years with an NIH fellowship) she voted in November in Carrboro. (One of the two is my son, guess I'm stretching a bit to call him a Carrboro resident as he's there only 3 days a week, but he spends more time in Carrboro than anywhere else). I think it illusory that those similar are somehow following Carrboro politics, their voting information most likely will come from me, or if I did not know them, from the Indy
Nothing personal, pulse rate stable. It flatly makes no sense. Obviously that's my own personal perspective. If someone wants to back you up by explaining how such a voluntary surrender of citizen influence in any way contributes to better representation of the majority (or any significant minority), then I will certainly consider what is offered. It's no big deal. I just don't see requesting that some unnamed people and organizations stop their civic participation so that some apparently impotent or uninspired citizens can gain an edge in electing a candidate that they might supportt (if they actually had the gumption to get in the public arena and participate democratically). So - again - who are these nefarious democracy stompers who have the umitigated gall to engage in civic participation without first receiving the blessing of those who by definition have not participated in the political process.My brain is sliding over to one side of my head. I have championed fair representation in Orange County while knowing full well that I may eventually disagree with the views expressed by those elected as a result of a fair expansion of the process. I totally support more and better democracy. However, in all my liberallity and open-mindedness, I have no sympathy for those who are too lazy to go out the door and take on the issues but would rather lobby that those who are engaged should disengage. That is simply - and I am searching for a word that will not grossly offend the senstive among us - poppycock.
I will encourage everyone whose participation has resulted in expressing the majority will of Carrboro to go against their dedication to their town to stand down, & give up their civic energy so that some unidentified, vaguely disengaged, autistically political folks can claim what is rightfully theirs - political power over those they had no chance of prevailing upon unless they gave up or died (you know these conspiratorial pseudo-citizens could die at the same time if they so desired, the controlling bastards...). This is what democarcy looks like.
None of the "silent majority" even recruited a candidate. The good news is that there will be much less participation in this upcoming election which will provide those who eschew participation more opportunities to do whatever they do in the absence of particiaption.
strikes again. Damon's sinister plot to leverage his OP editorship into a seat on the Board of Alderman seems to have worked perfectly.
of a problem with Damon then why didn't you run? All Damon did was to file as a candidate. If no one else chose to run that's their problem, not his. And if you really believe that OP can control an election then start your own blog. This is getting mighty old Geoff.
George you are confusing Geoff Gilson with Geoff Green
Thank you Gerry for pointing that out. And yes, Terri, now that Gerry has enlightened me I will go and clean my specs so that I may read more clearly next time.
Geoff has not expressed any issues or problems with Damon. He has only asked if there is a way to tamp down all the endorsements and let the general public make up their own minds based on what the candidates say and do. I really don't understand why so many people are upset with this request. Most of us know at the beginning of the municipal election season which candidates the Sierra Club and the Independent are going to endorse--and those are always the ones who win the election. Is that because they are the best candidates or because they have the best PR machines? Good grief, after what we see in our state legislature after the last election, it would seem like Geoff's suggestion alignes with all the other efforts get money and influence out of our electoral process.
What I find interesting though is this. I know for a fact that regular contributors to this forum have expressed the view that they no longer engage actively in the governance of Weaver Street Market Co-operative. Because they see no point. Since the chips are stacked against them.
As a consequence, we have had two years in a row where postions for Director have been uncontested. Why do we assume that the same impulse is not at work with respect to elections to the Carrboro Board of Aldermen?
I think you greatly overestimate the level of interest people have in being involved with the internal politics of their preferred source of milk, eggs, and produce.
Way to go Geoff.