Take a look at this list of the nation's ten largest cities and see if you can spot the problem:
| City | Population | Council Members | Members/100,000 people |
| New York | 8,175,133 | 51 | 0.62 |
| Los Angeles | 3,792,621 | 15 | 0.40 |
| Chicago | 2,695,598 | 50 | 1.85 |
| Houston | 2,099,451 | 14 | 0.67 |
| Philadelphia | 1,526,006 | 18 | 1.18 |
| Phoenix | 1,445,632 | 8 | 0.55 |
| San Antonio | 1,327,407 | 10 | 0.75 |
| San Diego | 1,307,402 | 8 | 0.61 |
| Dallas | 1,197,816 | 14 | 1.17 |
| San Jose | 945,942 | 10 | 1.06 |
Crazy, right? Los Angeles somehow muddles through with a population 40 percent larger than Chicago's and a city council of just 15 people.
Houston? 400,000 less people, 35 less council members.
The Civic Federation is releasing a report today that suggests Chicago should cut its city council in half. The move would save at least $6.5 million a year and also prevent aldermen from focusing so much on local services.
Indeed, this is the lynchpin of Chicago's political system, and the source of much of the corruption that plagues the city.
With 50 aldermen, none receive anything approaching adequate scrutiny from the media and other watchdogs. With upwards of 150 candidates running for the office, it's impossible for reporters to thoroughly background each candidate.
And, when you think about it, there's absolutely no reason that my alderman should have much of a say in whether I get a permit for a new fence or a pub license. These are regulatory decisions that, in most cities, are left to trained, impartial regulators. Properly so.
From my point of view, what's good enough for L.A. should be good enough for us. Why not cut the council to 15?