What does representation really mean when each Elmhurst ward has two aldermen today and would have one under the proposed reform?
BOTTOM LINE:
Two officeholders are more than one if representation is measured only by head count. But democratic representation also depends on responsiveness, accountability, and a clear connection between voters and the person who represents them. One alderman per ward can strengthen that connection while preserving an elected representative for every Elmhurst ward.
The arithmetic is simple. The politics is not.
Elmhurst now elects two aldermen from each of seven wards. Reducing that to one naturally raises a concern: if a ward has only one alderman, does it have less representation? The answer depends on what we mean by representation. Having two people available to answer calls is a real benefit. But representation is not simply a count of officeholders. It is also about whether residents know who is responsible, whether that person responds to the ward, whether that person can advance the concerns of their constituents, and whether voters can judge a clear record at the next election.
Representation includes accountability
Political scientist Jessica Trounstine summarizes a major tradition in democratic theory by describing representation through three ideas: authorization, responsiveness, and accountability. Voters choose a representative, expect that representative to respond to them, and later decide whether to keep or replace that person. That cycle works best when the connection between voter and representative is easy to see.
One alderman per ward creates a simple line of responsibility. Residents know who speaks for the ward, can follow that alderman’s votes and public positions, and can evaluate a single record. With two aldermen, responsibility can be shared, divided, or sometimes blurred. If one alderman supports a proposal and the other opposes it, the ward has two voices—but not necessarily a clearer voice. And maybe, effectively, no voice at all.
Elections matter because responsibility matters
Research on U.S. cities shows that elected officials become more responsive when reelection is at stake. Darin Christensen and Simon Ejdemyr studied millions of city-service requests and found evidence that council members seeking reelection became more responsive to constituents. That does not prove that one representative is always more responsive than two. It does reinforce a basic point: the electoral link matters. A structure that makes responsibility easier to identify may make that link easier for voters to use.
Two representatives can provide access—but also diffusion
The case for two aldermen should be taken seriously. Two representatives can provide another person to contact, different perspectives, and some redundancy when one alderman is unavailable. But those advantages have a counterpart. Shared responsibility can make it less obvious who owns a neighborhood problem, who should be credited for solving it, or who should be held accountable when it is ignored.
One ward, one representative, one clear record
Comparative political research has often found stronger voter-to-representative linkages in single-member districts than in pure multi-member districts. Elmhurst is not the same as the national electoral systems studied in that literature, so the comparison should not be pushed too far. Still, the underlying idea is relevant: when one elected official is clearly identified with one constituency, the relationship between voters and representative can become easier to understand.
Representation also happens while decisions are being made
There is another way to think about representation. A ward is not fully represented merely because it has two names on the Council roster. What matters is whether its elected representative is present when issues important to the ward are being discussed and shaped. If a seven-member Council does more of its detailed work together, every ward could be represented during more of the substantive discussion—not only when the final vote is taken.
What one alderman does not mean
One alderman per ward would not mean that residents could speak only to that alderman, or that other members of the Council could ignore citywide concerns. Aldermen would still govern the entire city. Residents would still be able to contact the mayor, other aldermen, City staff, boards and commissions, and one another. The change would simply make one person clearly responsible for representing each ward in the Council.
A fair way to frame the tradeoff
Two can mean more access. One can mean clearer responsibility.
The referendum is not really asking voters whether one is mathematically greater than two. It is asking which form of representation they value more: two officeholders sharing a ward, or one clearly accountable representative for each ward in a smaller Council.
Every ward would still have a seat at the table.
The proposed change removes the second alderman, not the ward. If a smaller Council also allows more work to be done by the full Council, one alderman per ward could produce a clearer relationship between residents and their representative while keeping all seven wards involved in the decisions that shape Elmhurst.
Selected research
1. Jessica Trounstine, “Representation and Accountability in Cities,” Annual Review of Political Science 13 (2010): 407–423. Link
2. Darin Christensen & Simon Ejdemyr, “Do Elections Improve Constituency Responsiveness? Evidence from US Cities,” Political Science Research and Methods 8, no. 3 (2020): 459–476. Link
3. Pippa Norris, “The Twilight of Westminster? Electoral Reform and Its Consequences” (2001), Weatherhead Center for International Affairs, Harvard University. Link
Reading the evidence carefully
The research cited here does not compare Elmhurst’s current two-alderman wards directly with a one-alderman alternative. It supports narrower propositions: accountability and responsiveness are central parts of representation; elections can strengthen responsiveness; and electoral structures can affect how clearly voters connect themselves to individual representatives. The referendum allows Elmhurst voters to decide how those ideas apply to their own city.