As the Memphis & Shelby County Metropolitan Government Charter Commission discusses the ideal number of members that should sit on the legislative body of the proposed metropolitan government, I thought it would be interesting to study the size of city councils and county commissions around the country.
In this post, I’ll focus on city councils of the primary cities of the 50 largest metropolitan areas in the nation; my next post will look at their county commissions.
The table below is ordered by metropolitan area, from largest in population to smallest (using 2009 estimates from the US Census Bureau). Only the primary city for each metropolitan area is studied. As is indicated in the far-right column, the percentage of the metropolitan population living in the primary city varies widely – from just 7% in Miami and Riverside (Calif.) to 65% in San Antonio. Memphis is actually one of only four cities in this list where the majority of the metropolitan population lives within the city limits of the primary city.
The population for each city and the number of members on its legislative body (which I will hereafter uniformly refer to as “city council,” regardless of its actual name) are indicated to determine the ratio of resident-per-council seat. Not surprisingly, the largest city councils in the country are in two of the three largest cites: New York and Chicago, with 51 and 50 members, respectively. But the ratios range from one council person for every 255,000 residents in Los Angeles to one for every 11,000 in Providence. At about one council person per 51,000 residents, Memphis is close to the average for these cities, which is one per 65,000.
No two city councils in these cities are alike. For example, in some cities, the mayor is actually a member of the legislative body and not the chief of a separate executive branch. For these cities, I did not include the mayor in the calculation of council members to allow for a clearer comparison.
Some cities still employ the city commission form of government; Portland elects four commissioners to act as heads of various municipal departments. Some cities have at-large seats. For example, New Orleans elects five council people from districts and its council president and vice-president at-large. All of the council seats in Detroit and Seattle are at-large, although Detroit recently voted to end this practice in 2013 and a similar movement is afoot in Seattle. Memphis has a unique take on at-large districts, electing six of its thirteen council members from two “super-districts.” Kansas City has a somewhat similar approach: it elects two members from each of its six large districts. Perhaps the most unique of all city councils was the one in Seattle from 1890-1896, where there was a bicameral council made up of a lower House of Delegates and an upper Board of Aldermen!
Cities with consolidated city-county forms of government typically have very large councils. This is the result of the combination of two legislative bodies into one. My next post will look at the size of the 50 primary cities’ county bodies, if one exists.
2009 | Council | Ratio | At-large | Metro pop | ||
City | city pop | seats | pop/seat | seats | in city | |
1 | New York | 8,363,710 | 51 | 163,994 | 0 | 44% |
2 | Los Angeles | 3,833,995 | 15 | 255,600 | 0 | 30% |
3 | Chicago | 2,853,114 | 50 | 57,062 | 0 | 30% |
4 | Dallas | 1,279,910 | 14 | 91,422 | 0 | 20% |
5 | Philadelphia | 1,547,297 | 17 | 91,017 | 7 | 26% |
6 | Houston | 2,242,193 | 14 | 160,157 | 5 | 38% |
7 | Miami | 413,201 | 5 | 82,640 | 0 | 7% |
8 | Washington, DC | 591,833 | 13 | 45,526 | 5 | 11% |
9 | Atlanta | 537,958 | 15 | 35,864 | 3 | 10% |
10 | Boston | 609,023 | 13 | 46,848 | 4 | 13% |
11 | Detroit | 912,062 | 9 | 101,340 | all | 21% |
12 | Phoenix | 1,567,924 | 8 | 195,991 | 0 | 36% |
13 | San Francisco | 815,358 | 11 | 74,123 | 0 | 19% |
14 | Riverside | 293,761 | 7 | 41,966 | 0 | 7% |
15 | Seattle | 598,541 | 9 | 66,505 | all | 18% |
16 | Minneapolis | 382,605 | 13 | 29,431 | 0 | 12% |
17 | San Diego | 1,279,329 | 8 | 159,916 | 0 | 42% |
18 | St. Louis city | 354,361 | 28 | 12,656 | 0 | 13% |
19 | Tampa | 332,888 | 7 | 47,555 | 3 | 12% |
20 | Baltimore | 636,919 | 15 | 42,461 | 1 | 24% |
21 | Denver | 598,707 | 13 | 46,054 | 2 | 23% |
22 | Pittsburgh | 312,819 | 9 | 34,758 | 0 | 13% |
23 | Portland | 557,706 | 4 | 139,427 | all | 25% |
24 | Cincinnati | 332,252 | 9 | 36,917 | all | 15% |
25 | Sacramento | 463,794 | 8 | 57,974 | 0 | 22% |
26 | Cleveland | 433,748 | 21 | 20,655 | 0 | 21% |
27 | Orlando | 220,186 | 6 | 36,698 | 0 | 11% |
28 | San Antonio | 1,351,305 | 10 | 135,131 | 0 | 65% |
29 | Kansas City | 451,572 | 12 | 37,631 | 0 | 22% |
30 | Las Vegas | 558,383 | 6 | 93,064 | 0 | 29% |
31 | San Jose | 948,279 | 10 | 94,828 | 0 | 52% |
32 | Columbus | 754,885 | 7 | 107,841 | all | 42% |
33 | Charlotte | 687,456 | 11 | 62,496 | 4 | 39% |
34 | Indianapolis | 798,382 | 29 | 27,530 | 4 | 46% |
35 | Austin | 757,688 | 6 | 126,281 | all | 44% |
36 | Virginia Beach | 433,746 | 10 | 43,375 | 3 | 26% |
37 | Providence | 175,255 | 15 | 11,684 | 0 | 11% |
38 | Nashville-Davidson | 596,462 | 41 | 14,548 | 6 | 38% |
39 | Milwaukee | 604,477 | 15 | 40,298 | 0 | 39% |
40 | Jacksonville | 807,815 | 19 | 42,517 | 5 | 61% |
41 | Memphis | 669,651 | 13 | 51,512 | 0 | 51% |
42 | Louisville-Jefferson | 557,224 | 26 | 21,432 | 0 | 44% |
43 | Richmond | 192,913 | 9 | 21,435 | 0 | 16% |
44 | Oklahoma City | 551,789 | 8 | 68,974 | 0 | 45% |
45 | Hartford | 124,512 | 9 | 13,835 | all | 10% |
46 | New Orleans | 223,388 | 7 | 31,913 | 2 | 19% |
47 | Birmingham | 229,424 | 9 | 25,492 | 0 | 20% |
48 | Salt Lake City | 178,858 | 7 | 25,551 | 0 | 16% |
49 | Raleigh | 392,552 | 7 | 56,079 | 2 | 35% |
50 | Buffalo | 276,059 | 9 | 30,673 | 0 | 25% |
Large, multi-member districts make it difficult to run for office without raising large sums of money for mailers, signs, etc. This means that large-money donors can maintain an unhealthy amount of control in the process.
25-30 single-member districts would mean it would be cheaper and easier to run, and make candidates less dependent on money for campaigns. Plus, it brings the Councilors closer to their districts.
Exactly how much do mailers and signs cost?
The difference I can attest to about city councils putting Memphis against NYC is that in NYC, you can get something done with your city council people even if hey don’t show up to a meeting, here, you can get them to show up sometimes, only to hear them say they can’t get anything done, especially getting speed bumps on streets children with drug houses.
We a greater number of districts that are based on a sense of place. What we have now is regular districts that haphazardly overlap numerous distinct neighborhoods and super districts that sprawl all the way across the city following antiquated red lines.
Amen, Steve. And smaller, community-based, concise districts allow more people to know their reps and in Louisville, for example, it has created council members in the neighborhoods which leads to people with problems knowing exactly who to hold accountable – that person down the block.
I read somewhere recently that costly, at-large contests have a natural screening process wherein business and civic groups hold candidates accountable to community-wide standards, thus eliminating some of the “idiots” who run for office in small district contests.
eliminate the idiots and you won’t have a need for council/commission elections.
Ha ha, too true!
How about if we have more and smaller districts so more people can campaign for these seats? The present system produces the power of incumbency that attracts expensive campaigns that the regular citizens can’t afford. With smaller and more districts, old-fashioned shoe leather campaigns could actually work.
Having lived in a city with no at-large seats, I am a little afraid of splitting the pie up too much. What often happens is that the administration nickels & dimes out resources to each district to keep them all happy. No one ever votes on priorities for the city as a whole. The at-large seats allow the smaller districts to have a strong voice while allowing some reasonable distribution of resources to meaningful projects vs. everybody getting their little peice even if it is meaningless and may have no impact on their neighborhood.
I’m sure there is a successful model out there that addresses all these concerns.
I suggest we look for it,
make sure it is backed by non sandbagged statistics,
and implement it.