Chapel Hill recently had to fill a vacancy on the Town Council. The process and results were distressing to many, mainly because the deadline had passed to fill the position in November's election. What could we do in future cases like that?

I dislike options 1 to 5; but options 6 to 11 are in order of good to best. Some options would need state permission.

1. Council appointment (Our current system)

The mayor and council appoint someone, but they cannot avoid looking unfair and biased. There can be a delay and a big distraction from other town business.

2. Executive appointment

Some other authority (mayor or governor?) could appoint a replacement, as with U.S. Senate vacancies. Similar drawbacks to option one.

3. No replacement

Leave the position open until the next election. That is not democratic or popular, nor currently legal.

4. Runner-up (mathematically wrong)

Last year many suggested appointing the fifth-place runner-up in the election. That is simply bad math, as most of council said. It is not necessarily who would have won if the voters had voted for five instead of four. You can't calculate a fair replacement with our current "at-large plurality" voting system.

5. Special election

Drawbacks: (a) usually shamefully low voter turnout; (b) expensive for city and candidates; (c) delay; (d) distraction; (e) distress and resentment; (f) possibility of two consecutive special elections; (g) likelihood of replacing someone who represented a particular segment of the population with someone who doesn't represent them.

6. Appointment by jury

A randomly drawn but voluntary jury: three men and three women. They interview applicants, discuss and vote by secret ballot. Has drawbacks c-g in option 5.

7. Town meetings (direct democracy)

Scrap town elections. Instead, an annual public meeting makes the laws. Town employees would merely carry them out. As in New England, Michigan and Minnesota. Or try it on the Internet.

8. Town meeting to fill vacancy

A jury composed of the whole town. Like options 6 and 7.

9. Replacement list

In case they later leave office, each candidate registers a list of replacements (in order of preference). The list can be superseded in extreme cases. Maintains about the same policy balance on council.

10. Random draw from the voters' list

If unwilling, unable, or ineligible, draw another. No previously elected officials. It worked in ancient Greece! Exciting; impartial; likely to pick someone humble and non-competitive.

11. Runner-up (mathematically correct)

First we change the whole election to an advanced voting system, "choice voting," a form of proportional representation (pro-rep). Each voter can rank the candidates in order of preference. Then it's easy to calculate who would have won a seat had the departing councilor not been on the ballot. We need to change our ballot, anyway, for many other reasons. Our current balloting is deceptively simple: seeming to be fair when it is not. It does not produce a consistent, proportional result. That is, we don't elect to council the same balance of interests as the voters have voted or wanted.

For more about pro-rep, go to www.fairvote.org and archive.fairvote.org /?page=561.