An Erin Janulis letter on Friday, Oct. 8 argued that homeowners were trying to disenfranchise the student body by trying to add two at-large members to the city council. The truth is that students are already disenfranchised; we disenfranchise ourselves by not voting.

Matters are not helped much by dividing the student body into four wards, but our collective choice not to involve ourselves in city politics has consequences beyond just not choosing our own representative. Because voter turnout is so much lower in student-heavy wards than non-student wards, council members elected by a small majority of municipal voters can overturn a mayor’s veto. This is in sharp contrast to the intent of the veto override conditions, which require that two thirds of the council approve a veto override. One of the reasons for at-large seats is that they restore the popular vote principles of modern America to the Urbana City Council.

In addition we need to re-enfranchise ourselves. Research this issue; go to www.plus2forurbana.org and www.noatlarge.org, look up information on at-large seats in past issues of the DI and News-Gazette to make up your own mind. I think you will come to the same conclusion that I have: that at-large seats will not dilute student representation but instead increase the diversity of ideas on the city council to match the diversity of ideas in Urbana.

But what about the potential costs of running an at-large race? While I personally think the at-large races will be won just like county board races – one door knock and yard sign at a time, an at-large media campaign can only remind everyone, including students, to get out and vote. So what Ms. Janulis argues as a negative is in fact a positive.

Vote yes to at-large candidates, retake our voice in local politics.

John Barela

graduate student