Assuming I have the option on November's ballot, I'm going to vote in favor of eliminating the scheduled expansion of the Board of County Commissioners by two seats at-large.  The reasoning behind that decision is based not only in theory, but the practical evidence evidence offered by  comparing two County Commission races this year.

One is an at-large race, while the other is a district race.

Rob Bradley is running for the chairmanship, one of the at-large seats, and is unopposed. Didn't start out that way, though.  He wasn't even the first person to start running for the position.

Already in that at-large race was County Commissioner Harold Rutldge.  Harold actually has more experience as a County Commissioner (slightly less than one four-year term), more experience as an elected official (one campaign victory to none), and has already served a whole year as BCC Chairman. The kind of resume that would certainly label someone a viable candidate.

And Harold was viable, too. Right up until Rob started filing campaign financial reports. The first report showed Rob had more than $27,000, even though Election Day was more than a year away at the time. Seemingly-viable resume notwithstanding, Harold was showed who the big-money was supporting, and that particular at-large office immediately became uncontested.

In a hotly-contested at-large election, we'll likely see candidates raise more than $100,000. Heck, Rob's raised almost 50K and no one's even running against him. No one familiar with the names on local political campaign contribution lists would doubt that he could raise that much more and then some if anyone stepped in to seriously challenge.

By contrast is the District 3 County Commission race this year, where I'm one of the candidates. Another candidate in the race, Travis Cummings, has a campaign donor list that closely resembles Rob's, already within spittin' distance of 50K and still raising money. I have $1,200 in my campaign account - but I can walk one district and campaign without having to raise the kind of dough my opponent has.

Some may say I don't have a snowball's chance of winning the August 26 primary election against election, but that's not really the point.  There is a third District 3 candidate, who is also remaining in the race despite the financial disadvantage - and that is the point.

Same big money, but two different effects on two types of elections. Voters have an option in only one.

The current Clay County election cycle shows why I will vote to abolish the two at-large County Commission seats. Big money has already purchased one at-large election this year by driving one candidate from the race.  But the same big money can't buy a district election.

Ultimately, at-large elections will reduce the choice of candidates in Clay County, narrowing the perspective of elected officials and inhibiting the possibility that there can be meaningul change in Clay County government and its priorities.

Michael S. Mann

michaelsmann@comcast.net [1]