Archive for the Important Voting Information Category

Bureaucratic Incumbents, the Elite to guide our Lives

Posted in Important Voting Information, Taxes and Managment on August 29, 2012 by seaweavermarine

Bureaucratic Incumbents, the Elite to guide our Lives

There is a growing idea that the mechanism of Government is too complex for the average citizen. This has been proposed by Democratic candidates for public office. They suggest the intricacies of Governance are too complicated for the regular people to attempt to undertake. This idea yields entrenched Bureaucrats who are consistently promoted and championed by other bureaucrats and media.

At some point the notion that Governance requires special people to lead results in the idea that we as regular citizens cannot manage our own affairs. If the average citizen can no longer manage their own affairs, then the result is that we must have Experts to do it for us.  This is madness.

It is Conceit which has marginalized District Two. Look at the backgrounds of those running for office and those on the County Board now. They all have been brought up through the ranks of Bureaucrat development. They were all Bureaucratic Incumbents prior to actually being elected.
There are only two people running for Orange County Commission that are not   Bureaucratic IncumbentsMary Carter and me, Chris Weaver.

In 2006 the County expanded the seats on the Commission from Five to Seven supposedly to offer the rural voter more input. This was a ruse. The marginalization of District Two is pronounced in intentionally skewed method of election of representatives.

District Two has 2 Representatives specific for the district. BUT, Rural voters in District Two are not told that the Chapel Hill/Carrboro voters of District One get to vote on District Two’s Representative. Further, the District One voting count is far greater than District Two (remember all those students?). This means that District One (Chapel Hill and Carrboro) will always choose the representative that suits the interests of District One, not the interests Rural Voter. District Two also may vote on District One Representatives but can only marginally affect the outcomes due to their less significant voting population. Added insult comes when sitting District Two representatives curry favor from this larger voting population in their Board voting.

This is no mistake. This method was chosen specifically to place the rural voter under the “care” of District One and Bureaucratic Incumbents. It is embedded in the idea that we as  regular citizens cannot manage our own affairs. Government large and small has come to view the Citizen as servants, we must correct this. Government is to serve the Citizen, and Representatives are to vote according interests and values of their district.
Regular Citizens can manage their own affairs, however if they do not participate in the political process they will soon come to be governed by their inferiors.

Mike Rowe of the TV show Dirty Jobs wrote a letter to Mitt Romney on the loss of stature for skilled labor…and in the comments was this gem…

Mike, there is another reason that skilled tradesmen (and women!) have been diminished in the eyes of the public.

In the last century, we have gradually replaced a healthy respect for wisdom and experience from any source, with the blind worship of the mere appearances of intellect … credentials, position, the ability to articulate one’s views in ways that are considered “intellectual” by our popular culture.

We have placed these “experts” who embody those mere appearances, on pedestals as though they are omniscient … forgetting that they still have the limits of human perception and capacity for human error … while devaluing the capabilities of MILLIONS of people who are far closer to the “dirty jobs” of living free and pursuing happiness than the high-and-erudite; millions who might just have better answers for the problems in their midst than such geniuses.


1st District chooses 2nd District’s Rep? are you Nuts?

Posted in Important Voting Information, Uncategorized on April 14, 2012 by seaweavermarine

I have touched on this before… BUT that is the reply I get from certain corners of the county. More specifically, members of the county whom are “in the know” on matters related to law and commerce.

Sorry , that needs repeating… More specifically, members of the county whom are “in the know” on matters related to law and commerce.

How may other people do not know this? Who was asleep when the referendum to expand the board from 5 to 7…was floated? Who did not read the fine print? The citizens of the rural areas seem to all be aware.

Districts “nominate” their representatives in the Primary, the entire county votes the nominees into office. District One is approaching 2:1 population advantage over District two, thus they determine who represents District Two, every time.

This is why anyone running for reelection to “serve” District Two will always pander to District One.

I have eliminated this by choosing to run for one term. Really, who wants entrenchment anyhow? FOUR YEARS is plenty….unless you are angling for the Health Care and Pension Benefits for life. We  have covered that for ourselves in this family(self-sustainability)(personal responsibility)

I would like to see more people run for office in this county. You need not a Gene in your DNA to qualify. If you can manage your affairs in this world with out supplemental aid and you own property are the essential requirements in my book. You need not be a lawyer or have a PhD.  There are plenty of these in government making a mess of things now.

We need more “regular” people in government. People who can allow the citizens to prosper…and represent those citizens for the district there are elected to. I would have said …” for the  district they were elected to serve”,  but the current, intentional election set up prevents that from being a true statement.

Consider this: Who wags district Two?….now ask…Who wags District One? Now ask, What form of Government is this?



Per State code
§ 153A‑58. Optional structures.
A county may alter the structure of its board of commissioners by adopting one or any combination of the options prescribed by this section.
(3) Mode of election of the board of commissioners:
a. The qualified voters of the entire county shall nominate all candidates for and elect all members of the board.
For options b, c, and d, the county shall be divided into electoral districts, and board members shall be apportioned to the districts so that the quotients obtained by dividing the population of each district by the number of commissioners apportioned to the district are as nearly equal as practicable.
b. The qualified voters of each district shall nominate candidates and elect members who reside in the district for seats apportioned to that district; and the qualified voters of the entire county shall nominate candidates and elect members apportioned to the county at large, if any.
c. The qualified voters of each district shall nominate candidates who reside in the district for seats apportioned to that district, and the qualified voters of the entire county shall nominate candidates for seats apportioned to the county at large, if any; and the qualified voters of the entire county shall elect all the members of the board.
d. Members shall reside in and represent the districts according to the apportionment plan adopted, but the qualified voters of the entire county shall nominate all candidates for and elect all members of the board.

This 3C is our method. It was voted in in the 2006 general election by what I deem slight of wording as I contend the general population did not realize they where to loose control of electing their district representatives in the plan which simply highlighted the expansion of the BOCC from Five to Seven.

Here is more background info including how it may actually be unconstitutional.

NOTE: Strictly as an example… Earl McKee received nearly 20 thousand votes from District One in 2010.

So ask: What will happen on the election day when District One decides they do not want the representative that District Two wants?