Sometime back, I wrote a Letter to the Editor refuting the Lottery Director’s statement that the North Carolina Education Lottery was harmless entertainment. (Calling a lottery educational is like calling the death penalty instructional.) The director reasoned that the total amount wagered divided by the total number playing was small potatoes. My observation was that the wagering was not evenly distributed but follow Pareto’s Principle in that 20 percent of the people did 80 percent of the wagering. And in this case, the 20 percent who play the lottery in excess are the ones least financially able to do so.

The observation that 20 percent of the people have 80 percent of the money, or 20 percent of the people do 80 percent of the volunteering, or 20 percent of the pieces of equipment make 80 percent of the defects or,  most importantly, 20 percent of the people make 80 percent of the mistakes, has been around forever. The principle was formalized by Pareto more than 100 years ago.

Understanding this phenomena is vital to solving a problem. Now hold that thought.

The Marines often described what they called “a sucking chest wound.” It could be a metaphor as in your buddy’s girlfriend was cheating on you, or it could be the real thing. In either case, it was seen as a slow and painful death.

Beaufort County has a sucking chest wound. It is called restricted or limited voting. With this system, a voter can vote for only one county commissioner candidate even when there are three or four positions open. It was originally instituted to assure that minorities would be represented, but this has long since been a non-issue. The top three or four (depending on the cycle) vote-getters are elected as county commissioners. One of the problems with this system is that the third or fourth vote-getter may only get 10 or 15 percent of the votes cast and still be elected.

Now remember that thought you were holding: that 20 percent of the people/voters make 80 percent of the mistakes. Having a voting system where 15 percent of the votes can get a commissioner elected and 20 percent of the voters get it wrong is a formula for disaster.

However, if the voters were to get one vote for each position open or vote by districts, this inherent bias is greatly reduced. In other words, the 20 percent will still get it wrong but having one vote per position levels the playing field.

Now, the icing on the cake is that these same elected officials are the only ones who can change this voting system — truly a rabbit guarding your lettuce. And then to add insult to injury, there are no term limits for county commissioners. There is nothing like getting elected to change your views on term limits.

What to do? I’m writing this letter to highlight the issue, and I will vote only for candidates who are committed to changing this outdated and destructive voting system.

 

Jack Piland

Bath