On Nov. 2, a referendum will ask Urbana residents to decide whether their city needs to change its system of government. Currently, seven seats on the Urbana City Council; each represents one of seven wards.

The referendum, dubbed “+2 at-large,” will ask residents whether they want to add two more seats to the Urbana City Council, elected through city-wide elections instead of by individual wards.

This editorial board cannot reach a clear decision on the issue. Supporters and opponents of the initiative both have made strong arguments. However, we cannot reach a majority. One member of the board was unable to hear presentations on both sides of the issue and therefore abstained from voting.

The current initiative is the result of disproportionate growth in Urbana and poor planning by both the mayor and city council. Not all wards are growing at equal rates: statistics project that Ward 6 will experience higher population growth within the next year. However, when competing ward maps were drawn and voted on in 2003, neither the mayor nor the city council proposed a map that would address this future problem.

On one hand, residents in Ward 6 deserve an equal voice on the Urbana City Council. It’s unfair to give a ward with approximately 7,000 residents the same representation as a ward with approximately 5,000 residents. Yet, we are divided on whether adding two at-large seats will address the problem.

Candidates for Urbana City Council typically have the opportunity to campaign at a relatively low cost through door-to-door canvassing in their wards. Campaigning for at-large seats obviously will be more expensive, thus discouraging many residents from running. Furthermore, the small size of each ward guarantees that ward representatives will be more in touch with constituents. At-large representatives will not have this luxury.

We do, however, agree that the current system of government is undemocratic. Urbana aldermen clearly don’t represent an equal number of residents. Alternative solutions to the problem also don’t appear to be too realistic. Adding a second alderman to Ward 6 is impossible unless its population doubles in size, and redrawing the ward map would require a costly census with no guarantee that the map would remain a permanent fix. At-large seats have the potential to address disproportionate growth in Urbana. Because at-large seats are elected by the entire city, this could give residents in expanding wards an opportunity to have an equal say in government.

In the end, there are no guarantees that adding two at-large seats will address the unequal share of voice within the Urbana City Council. Potentially, residents in Ward 6 could play a major role in electing a city-wide official. However, there is the possibility that Urbana voters could elect an official whose interests still differ from those in the larger wards. Because we cannot reach a clear majority, we encourage voters to look at the facts and decide for themselves. What decision is the most fair and democratic?