Ward Systems and Urban Politics (1)

WARD SYSTEMS AND URBAN POLITICS (1) Roger E. Kasperson° “The organization has nominated thieving sons-of-bitches and the citizens’ association has nominated sanctimonious sons-of-bitches. I’m not sure which is better.” (A Kansas City citizen). The particular character of politics in any city is the outcome of a myriad of factors of which elements of political structure play a prominent part. Urban ward systems comprise one of the most pervasive and variable por­ tions of this structure. Yet, whereas other aspects, such as partisanship and nonpartisanship, of urban political structure have been examined with metic­ ulous if not monotonous care, the relevance, if any, ofthe spatial organization of the polity to the functioning of the system remains unestablished. This study has a rather modest goal—simply to glean from the literature on a number of American cities whatever empirical evidence exists on this relationship. Specifically, is it possible to determine the impact of spatial structure upon the representation of various peoples and interests, upon electoral competition, and upon the functioning of the political system as a whole? Methodologically, any definitive statement on these questions is probably impossible. There are almost limitless variations in urban ecology as well as great complexity in the spatial organization of that ecology. Furthermore, differences in ward systems tend to covary with other variables (e.g. nonpartisanship , council-manager government, widespread civil service) of political structure. Given the multivariate complexity and the relatively limited number of cities for which detailed data are available, the intervening variables make an assessment of the individual effects of the ward system somewhat hazardous. Nevertheless, comparative study makes for some major generalizations. Fortunately, a body of literature dealing with individual cities provides avenues for exploration. The City Politics Reports, (2) edited by Edward Banfield and published by the Joint Center for Urban Studies of M.I.T. and Harvard University, are particularly valuable for the wealth of empirical evidence they contain. WARD SYSTEMS IN THE UNITED STATES. There are three major types ofward systems in the United States: at-large, district, and combination types. In effect, however, great differences arise from the size of wards in district systems so that large ward cities tend to assume some of the characteristics *Dr. Kasperson is assistant professor of government and geography at Clark University, Worcester, Massachusetts. The paper was accepted fo r publication in July 1969. 18 So u t h e a st e r n G e o g r a ph e r of at-large cities. As Table 1 indicates, 67 per cent of all cities over 5,000 in population in the United States elect their councilmen at-large. In this system, all the voters of the city elect all the councilmen, and the councilmen represent the entire city rather than particular geographical areas. If wards are present at all, they serve merely as convenient collection areas for votes. One variation on the at-large system frequently occurs in Texas and Washington in which each candidate runs for a particular place or numbered position rather than against all other candidates. Houston, for example, in 1960 elected all its councilmen at-large, but five of the eight had to reside in specific districts. These district councilmen served constituents as if they were elected from the particular district and presented bills to the council to benefit the residents of the district. The three non-district councilmen, by contrast, received constituent requests on city-wide issues. TABLE 1 WARD SYSTEMS IN THE UNITED STATES, 1968 (Election of Councilmen ) population Group At-Large By Ward At-Large & By Ward Other Over 500,000 46.2% 23.1% 26.9% 3.8% 250,000-500,000 70.4 7.4 22.2 100 ,000-250,000 66.3 18.5 15.2 50 ,000-100,000 60.8 18.4 20.7 25 ,000- 50,000 68.5 17.7 13.6 1.2 10,000-25,000 68.5 19.4 11.8 3.3 5,000-10,000 66.4 23.3 10.1 2.2 TOTAL 67.0 20.4 12.4 .2 Source: Mark Keane and David Arnold (eds.), The M unicipal Year Book, Washington, 1968, p...