A Smaller Council Could Mean Competitive Elections and Better Discussions
Elmhurst has seven wards with two aldermen representing each ward. Reducing the Council to seven aldermen, with one representing each ward, could improve two essential parts of representative government: the opportunity for voters to choose among candidates and the opportunity for the elected Council to work through issues together.
These benefits share a common purpose. Voters benefit when competing candidates give them alternatives to examine. Residents benefit when aldermen test alternative proposals through questions, objections, and informed discussion. A smaller council could create better conditions for both kinds of judgment.
More opportunity for contested elections
The aldermanic races for eight regular election years, from 2011 through 2025, were reviewed. Of these 56 races, 30 had only one candidate. In other words, a majority offered voters no competing candidate for the seat being filled.1
| Candidates in a regular race | Races | Share |
| One | 30 | 54% |
| Two | 22 | 39% |
| Three or more | 4 | 7% |
| Total | 56 | 100% |
Every ward had at least three uncontested races during this period. With two seats for each ward elected in different years, people interested in representing the same ward can serve together without facing one another. With one seat per ward, candidates seeking to represent that ward at the same election would compete for the same office. That could give voters more opportunity to compare priorities, qualifications, and approaches, although it would not ensure that more than one candidate runs.
More opportunity for deliberation by the whole Council
Once an election is over, the question becomes how well the representatives can examine public business together. Useful deliberation requires members to follow one another’s reasoning, ask questions, answer objections, and consider changes. The opportunity to make a statement is only one part of that work.
Research on group discussion offers a reason to expect an advantage from a smaller body. Five-person and ten-person groups were compared in experiments by Nicolas Fay, Simon Garrod, and Jean Carletta. In the smaller groups, members exchanged ideas and were most influenced by the people they interacted with. In the larger groups, communication more closely resembled successive monologues, with the dominant speaker exerting the greatest influence.2
Susan Wheelan’s study of 329 work groups in American businesses and nonprofit organizations also found advantages associated with smaller groups. Groups of three to eight members were more productive than larger groups.3
Elmhurst already uses small groups for detailed deliberation: its committees have three or four aldermen. Small groups for discussions are not the entire issue. Representation in the discussion groups is also important. Currently, no committee includes a representative from every ward. An alderman is not a member of the committees working on three out of the four subject matter areas. A Council of seven could bring all seven wards and aldermen into more of those discussions while remaining small enough for direct exchange. The benefit from that opportunity would depend on how the Council organizes its work.
Working closely includes productive disagreement
The benefit of closer working relationships is the possibility of candid, substantive disagreement. Members should be able to challenge assumptions, request evidence, and reshape proposals to create alternatives while continuing to work effectively with their colleagues. Collegiality serves the public when it makes that exchange possible.
The desired result cannot be measured simply by the number of split votes. A Council might debate a proposal vigorously, change it substantially, and approve the revised version unanimously. The meaningful question is whether the discussion gave alternatives a fair hearing and improved the decision.
A smaller body would not guarantee this conduct. Personalities, leadership, and meeting practices would still matter. The structural benefit is a more manageable setting in which reasonable people can do their best work together.
A stronger opportunity for informed judgment
The two benefits reinforce a single purpose. A contested election gives voters an opportunity to test the people seeking responsibility. Substantive deliberation gives those representatives an opportunity to test the proposals on which they will act. Both make room for alternatives to be heard and evaluated.
The case for seven does not depend on criticizing the people now serving. It asks whether a different arrangement would give future candidates, voters, and aldermen better opportunities to exercise judgment. Each ward would still elect its own representative. The change would concentrate the choice of that representative in one office and place the elected members in a smaller deliberating body.
Elmhurst cannot guarantee competitive elections or thoughtful debate through a change in Council size. It can choose a structure with a reasonable prospect of encouraging both. Seven offers a practical opportunity for more meaningful elections and more meaningful deliberation.
Sources and Data
1. Counts below are candidacies in each regular aldermanic election from 2011 through 2025, not distinct individuals across years.
| Election year | Ward 1 | Ward 2 | Ward 3 | Ward 4 | Ward 5 | Ward 6 | Ward 7 |
| 2025 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 2 | 1 | 1 |
| 2023 | 3 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 2 |
| 2021 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 1 | 2 | 4 | 1 |
| 2019 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
| 2017 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 1 |
| 2015 | 2 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 1 |
| 2013 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 2 | 1 | 2 |
| 2011 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 1 | 2 | 2 |
2. Fay, N., Garrod, S., and Carletta, J. (2000). Group Discussion as Interactive Dialogue or as Serial Monologue: The Influence of Group Size. Psychological Science, 11(6), 481–486.
3. Wheelan, S. A. (2009). Group Size, Group Development, and Group Productivity. Small Group Research, 40(2), 247–262.