COMMENTARY | When Unity Is Within Reach, Why Return to Square One?

In politics, pride can be costly. Division can be devastating.

Columbus recently witnessed a rare moment of political maturity when Marquese “Skinny” Averett and Chris Kelley chose conversation over conflict. The two District 7 candidates, whose campaigns once appeared headed for a bruising contest, met, cleared the air and ultimately consolidated their efforts. Kelley stepped aside. Averett moved forward as the unified candidate.

For many observers, that decision signaled something larger than individual ambition. It represented an effort to avoid a familiar and often damaging political outcome: the split vote.

History has shown that when candidates appeal to similar constituencies and divide the same pool of voters, the results can undermine the very communities they aim to serve. Elections are not decided by sentiment. They are decided by arithmetic.

However, the sense of unity proved short-lived. Shortly after Kelley’s announcement, Laketha Ashe declared her candidacy for the same seat, reshaping the field once again.

Ashe ran an unsuccessful campaign for District 7 School Board in 2024.

Her entry into the race has prompted renewed debate. Some political observers now describe the development as a return to fragmentation, arguing that additional candidates could divide voters with aligned interests. In political terms, the word being used is “spoiler” — a candidate whose presence in the race could alter the outcome by splitting a shared base of support.

That label is inherently controversial. Every candidate has the legal and civic right to seek office. No one enters a campaign intending to undermine a cause or weaken a movement. Yet political rights and political strategy are not identical.

It requires maturity to recognize when the broader goal outweighs individual aspirations. It requires humility to acknowledge that timing and alignment matter. And it requires political awareness to understand that divided energy often produces diminished results.

Columbus has seen this scenario before. Campaigns begin with enthusiasm, multiple candidates compete for the same voters and, in the end, the outcome leaves many asking what might have been different had consolidation occurred earlier.

Vote-splitting is not theoretical. It is mathematical. When similar constituencies fracture, candidates with smaller but more cohesive bases often benefit. Municipal, state and national elections have repeatedly illustrated that point.

The question now is whether District 7 voters are prepared to step back and consider the larger picture. Is the goal expanded choice, or effective representation? Is this moment about personal positioning, or collective progress?

Political fields can still shift. Conversations can still take place. Alliances can still form before ballots are cast. But time has a way of narrowing options.

If unity was once within reach and is now slipping away, the community must decide whether it is prepared to revisit a familiar cycle.

Are we advancing strategically — or are we, once again, returning to square one?