Cutting Size of Chicago City Council? BGA Analysis Does the Math

BGA ^ | 12/10/2010 | BGA

[pinstripes715]

Chicago has not always had 50 wards. From 1901 to the 1920s, the council had 70 aldermen representing 35 wards, with two aldermen per ward. The two aldermen served alternating terms, with one of them up for re-election each year.

Since 1920, aldermen have been chosen in elections with a run-off when no candidate gets a majority of the vote in the first round. In 1923 the City was divided into 50 wards, instead of 35, and each of those got their own alderman. Since 1935 Aldermen have served four-year terms.

[pnh102]

Chicago has shown that large majorities of its residents cannot pick leaders that can help to bring peace and order to the city. It needs to be ruled, not governed, until this situation is remedied.

[muawiyah]

Always an important topic. Worth remembering, though, just because you have a SMALLER council, that doesn't mean crime won't be committed.

Fairfax County (one of America's richest) has had MORE "district supervisors" (local name for the same thing as alderman) go to prison for corruption per 100,000 population than Chicago in the last 50 years.

We could use a far larger county board with less staff. By essentially doubling the Board to 25 members with all of them running at large we could institute a "party list voting" system that would broaden the political spectrum represented on the existing board.

It'd be a tad more "parliamentary" but it was a single house council anyway.

I like that older Chicago election schedule. You could kick half the idiots out every year if you needed to.

[PBRCat]

I think that the single biggest mistake that was ever foisted upon the poor dupes in Chicago is allowing alderman to serve four year terms. A Congressman, a state representative and, sometimes, even a state senator serve two year terms, but allowing aldermen to serve for four years at a time really strengthens these venal politicians at the expense of the public.