How Representative is St. Louis City Government of our Population
I’ve never been much of a numbers person but in grad school we’ve been looking closely at the 1990 and 2000 census for the City of St. Louis and the St. Louis region (site 1 and site 2). Many have theorized about the meaning of these numbers but I want to look at if those we have elected represent us in terms of race, age and other factors.
My goal is not to get into a big debate about racial make-up and what that means. It is clear from the city’s chart at right that the city is pretty much black and white. We are not a melting pot. Our city is 95% white & black. Still, we have a large asian and hispanic population, both of which I believe are on the rise. Through some methodology I don’t understand at this point, hispanics are classified in an “ethnicity” category separate from race. Hispanics are a hair over 2% of the population, presumably classified as “white” on the question of race.
Two aldermanic seats is equal to 7.1% of the population. I think we are just about there with asian, hispanics and others such as native american. Not that I want to create quotas or rig districts to create a couple of seats reserved for a certain race or ethnicity but our elected officials do not send the melting pot image to the world.
Currently blacks hold 12 of 28 seats, or just under 43%. This while having over 51% of the population in 2000. To be truly representative of who we are I could see blacks having an additional two seats on the board of aldermen.
Of course, these two seats plus the other two seats that, at least theoretically should be occupied by say an asian and a hispanic, would come at the expense of seats held by whites (current 16 down to 12). I could see a Bosnian person holding one of the remaining 12 white seats.
Currently nine aldermen are women (Alderwomen, Alderpersons). This is 32% of the total number of seats yet women made up 53% of our population in 2000.
I think what these numbers show is the composition of who is representing us doesn’t quite jive with our actually demographic make-up. Must we force these 28 seats to look like us? No. Can we conclude that our political system is heavily weighted toward white men? Yes, I think we can. And yes, duh!
Nearly 16% of our population in 2000 was comprised of adults aged 25-34 and another 27% ages 35-54. Are four of our aldermen under age 34? Another seven between 35-54? I don’t know their ages but I don’t think so. Just under 21% of our population in 2000 was 55 and older (which would represent 5-6 seats). The remaining 36% were 24 and younger (25 is the minimum age to run for alderman). Of course, someone has to represent those under age 25. Not only is our board of aldermen comprised of white men it is comprised of an age group that is smaller in number compared to younger groups. A number of current aldermen were elected while in their 20s or early 30s so it can be done.
But Steve, you are white male, you say. Yes, yes I am. I’m also openly gay, yet another group not represented at city hall. What is our gay population? 10%? What about 10.7%? Well, that would equate to 3 seats on the Board of Aldermen! Now, I’m not holding my breath until we’ve got three openly gay representatives at City Hall, but I’d like to see us have at least one openly gay alderman by 2009.
I would love to see a more diverse group of candidates seeking the office of alderman in the Spring 2007 elections, in the Democratic primary as well as in the general election. Where are the Republicans, Green, Libertarian and independent candidates? Where are the foreign born (that have been citizens for 5 years) the hispanics and the asians? Come on folks, we need to bring a more diverse viewpoint to city hall.
In the 2007 elections the even numbered wards are up for election, 8 are held by whites while 6 are held by blacks (yes, it was worked out that half of each would be up re-election so that it was not skewed either way). Only three of these 14 seats are held by women, one black and two white. Six white males will presumably be seeking re-election. Of these six Craig Schmid (D-20th Ward) probably has one of the most racially diverse wards with good doses of white, black and hispanics. While I seldom agree with Schmid on planning & development strategies I will concede that he is very passionate about doing his best to represent his constituents. Note: many other aldermen may be passionate as well but I’ve had more interaction with Schmid over the years so I’m able to characterize him better than an alderman that I’ve never even met. My point is a white male is seeking re-election in a very diverse ward. Do we re-elect him because of his past performance, ideas and work ethic or do we look to someone to help diversify the board of alderman? Your call.
We’ve had a good many immigrants since the 2000 census so it will be interesting to see from the 2010 census how our makeup has changed. Have whites continued to leave this city? Those elected in 2009, and potentially those elected in 2007 (if re-elected in 2011), will help create the new ward boundaries that will take us clear into 2021. These next two aldermanic cycles, first for even wards in 2007 and odd numbered in 2009, will have a long-term affect on our future.
Thinking about running? I want to help, even if you are a straight white male. Just try to find the most basic of information, such as when can I file to run for alderman, on the Board of Elections website. Go ahead, I dare you. Guess what, it is not there. You’d think the entity responsible for running elections in this city would provide a minimum of information on how to actually seek public office. You and me, the common people, are not supposed to know this information. Ssssshhhh, this is top secret stuff important to ensuring the longevity of their political careers. If people knew how and when to run for office they might actually do so, and then where would we be?
I will be doing a series of posts on some of the basics — when the filing period opens and closes, how to file, what are the costs, how to get organized, etc. This will likely lead into a workshop or two where you can seek out more information on grassroots campaigning. A little disclaimer, I am not even remotely close to an expert in this area but I may well be the only one willing to share what I do know in a public forum. Also, this does not mean I will support your candidacy over an incumbent or another candidate — I simply want to de-mystify the process so that more people will consider running.
Here are a few starting points. If you want to run in a ward you need to have lived there a year before the election. So, if you don’t already live in an even numbered ward don’t even think you can move and run in March 2007. The filing for the March 2007 will open in November (I don’t know the exact date) and it will close in January 2007 (again, I don’t yet know the exact date). I will get this detail at a starting point for the next post on guiding newbie candidates.
Steve, this is excellent info and much, much needed. Thanks SO much for posting this… one of the many reasons I love this blog. I suspect, with some ongoing education by you and others, we might just have a great pool of candidates to choose from!
I would particularly like to see some good candidates running for Mayor. What characteristics would you and others like to see in a new mayor for St. Louis???
Race has nothing to do with competence. Neither does gender or sexual orientation. And unless all gays (or asians or hispanics) choose to move to one or two wards, the likelihood of electing an alderman that looks exactly like “you” remains very much slim to none.
I’m a white male. In my lifetime, I’ve voted for a black and a hispanic for mayor (of Denver) and I’ve actively supported and worked for both men and women running for city council. I find it a bit offensive to assume that a white male will do a better job of representing my interests than a hispanic woman or a black lesbian would.
Until St. Louis moves beyond this fixation on tallying up and keeping score on our various racial percentages, we’re going to remain a city that’s not united in our efforts to turn things around . . .
That said, I applaud your efforts to bring more transparency to the process. Doing that and increasing the pay will do a lot to increase interest and participation.
And how can we increase the pay, you ask (especially in a cash-strapped city)? Simple – cut the number of wards in half and you can double the salary. Pittsburgh has 9 city council members, Denver has 13. Why does St. Louis need 28, other than “That’s the way we’ve always done things.”?!
For the 10,000th time: “African-American” is not a “race”. It is a social classification invented by guilty white PC weenies.
A black person from England is not an “African-American”, but in your table would be counted as such.
for you or anyone else curious, yes, as the Census Bureau uses the term, “hispanic” is an ethnicity and not a race–hispanic people can be white, black, indigenous north american, or (most typically) some combination. Wikipedia has more: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hispanic
…getting into the politics of classification is a whole ‘nother sticky wicket….
BOA members are elected to represent the people in their wards, not the city as a whole. Demographic representation under the current ward system (as opposed to at-large) would result in only one ward having a male representative on BOA (7th Ward) and there would be two more blacks on BOA (17th & 20th Wards).
“For the 10,000th time: “African-American” is not a “race”. It is a social classification invented by guilty white PC weenies.
A black person from England is not an “African-American”, but in your table would be counted as such. ”
That person would be counted, because this number refers to a census count called “Black or African-American.” For some reason the city printed only the second part of the header.
What do we want for a new mayor?
Superficially: Not a straight white male, or any white male, no matter how progressive. There have only been two African-American mayors of this city ever! There has never been a female mayor, either.
So, I’d like at least for the next mayor to be female.
There are of course other considerations, but as Steve points out representation is a social justice mechanism.
Does it matter what race the mayor/elected official is? Race, religion, sexual orientation, sex – as long as they do their job and listen to those they represent – the above shouldn’t matter! But, I guess having officials that do their job is another entry all in itself.
Competence, determination and vision (should?!) trump gender, ethnicity and sexual orientation any day . . . . but wait, this is still St. Louis . . .
“Competence, determination and vision (should?!) trump gender, ethnicity and sexual orientation any day . . . . but wait, this is still St. Louis . . .”
Yes, but it’s as much “still St. Louis” to ignore racial and gender representation in the local power structure.
“What do we want for a new mayor?
Superficially: Not a straight white male, or any white male, no matter how progressive. There have only been two African-American mayors of this city ever! There has never been a female mayor, either.
So, I’d like at least for the next mayor to be female.
There are of course other considerations, but as Steve points out representation is a social justice mechanism.”
For all of the liberals who claim that race and gender do not matter, they sure do make a fuss about it! Which is it? Either race matters or it doesn’t. You can’t have it both ways.
What about those two black mayors? They were among the worst mayors this city has seen. Sorry, but the logic that because the city is majority black there should be a black mayor doesn’t work. The job should go to the person who is most competent, not based on the color of their skin. I’ll take evil white devil Slay over Harmon or a Bosley (the family should really be exiled from the city).
32% of city residents are blonde. They are not proportionately represented on the board of aldermen. We haven’t had a blonde mayor in quite some time.
Why do we take conditions that we are born with (sexual preference, skin color, gender) and make them a template for our expectations for our representatives in government?
Why would we want leaders with allegiance to a small minority rather than to the citizens they were elected to represent?
This was a very disturbing blog entry, notwithstanding our need for new leaders in government. I’m glad to see some others called out UR.
One of the people I supported in their campaigns, first for the Colorado House, then for the Colorado Senate, was white, female, blonde, a lawyer and a lesbian. I supported her because she was an effective legislator and because she reached out to and communicated with her constituents. I did not support her because she was gay, and I certainly didn’t support her because she was a lawyer. (I don’t think her sexual orientation was an issue earlier on, although she did disclose it in advocating against some blatanly anti-gay issues.) I supported her because her values mirrored mine.
I’m still getting up to speed on the cast of characters that make up the local political establishment. There are some out there that do are or seem to be (or at least trying to) doing a good job. There are some that seem to be either ineffective and/or keeping a low profile. And, based on the number of local recall elections, there seem to be a few that are truly incompetent and/or aren’t skilled in building the type of consensus needed to be politically effective.
There are also a couple of bumper stickers out there that reflect my philosophy, one, “If you’re not part of the solution, you’re part of the problem”, and two, “Get involved – the world is run by those who show up”. Steve certainly has the right idea. We need to convince good people to run AND we need to work to support their campaigns, be it writing checks, talking to our neighbors, knocking on doors and/or making phone calls. Yes, there is an entrenched group of politicians here – no different than anywhere else. “Outsiders” can win IF they develop a viable campaign and are actually a better candidate than the incumbent.
Incumbency gives you both name recognition and a track record (hopefully, a positive one). There certainly is comfort/less fear in a known entity, A challenger just needs to offer something better. For better or worse, St. Louis has small wards. If you can’t define a better outcome for your ward, why should anyone vote for you? And until you get elected, you can’t focus on bigger-picture issues, like urban design standards, inside or outside your ward. While I want to vote for someone who has vision, I also want someone who’s accesssible and will look out for my/our ward. And if comes down to two (or more) equally-qualified candidates, I’ll probably vote for the one that’s “more like me”. In reality, that’s rarely, if ever, the case. There ARE differences – it’s up to the candidates to emphasize them AND it’s up to us, as voters, to dig them out. I’m not electing a spouse, a significant other, a buddy or a soulmate. I’m electing someone to represent me in the legislative process. I want effectiveness and I want communication. I don’t care if they’re a muslim polygamist from Oklahoma IF they share my values and they can get the job done better than the other candidates I have to pick from!
Like I said previously, focusing on physical attributes just distracts from the real issue – competence. John Danforth was apparently an amazing legislator, and his perspective on the current political dynamic is disheartening, to say the least. We need to focus on positive outcomes for the collective whole. Focusing on narrower agendas, especially ones that attempt to impose someone else’s “values” on my personal life, is a road we need to turn back from.
That said, all politics is local – let’s support the good candidates at the local level, and if they’re not there, let’s get some new ones to run!
Steve:
In response to your comment, “My point is a white male is seeking re-election in a very diverse ward. Do we re-elect him because of his past performance, ideas and work ethic or do we look to someone to help diversify the board of alderman? Your call.”
Of course we should re-elect an office holder that works hard for his constituents, regardless of race, color, ethnicity, sex, sexual orientation, age, gender, etc. This should be common sense. Those divisive factors have no place in proper governance. I can’t say it any better than Jim Zavist already has, “Until St. Louis moves beyond this fixation on tallying up and keeping score on our various racial percentages, we’re going to remain a city that’s not united in our efforts to turn things around . . .”
And, in response to, “You’d think the entity responsible for running elections in this city would provide a minimum of information on how to actually seek public office. You and me, the common people, are not supposed to know this information. Ssssshhhh, this is top secret stuff important to ensuring the longevity of their political careers.”
Yeah, it’s so top secret is can be found in the City’s Charter. I agree that the BOE website could use many enhancements, which hopefully will be made under their new leadership. But, thank you for making everyone more aware of the requirements. Your efforts serve democracy, but leave the dramatic rabbel rousing at home, please.
And finally, regarding your comment, “As I would expect you trivialize what are very real concerns for very real people. While you are making light of concerns about diversity others are showing how diverse and tolerant communities are the ones attracting new residents and new jobs.”
It is actually anyone that mandates (or even suggests) quotas who trivialize real concerns for the artificial physical characteristics. As your example of Ald. Craig Schmid points out, the elected official need not be of the same race, color, ethnicity, sex, sexual orientation, age, gender as the majority of those served to be able to effectively serve the district.
ideally things like race, gender, sexual orientation, etc. shouldn’t matter in political elections, job interviews, etc, but i’m pretty sure there are studies that show differently. (i’ll go check so people don’t attack me for lack of evidence.) i don’t think elected officials should cater to specific groups, but having those groups represented in local government may give individuals who identify with those groups, who may traditionally have had little to no voice, the courage to participate more.
I am not making light of diversity. It’s just that you can’t count on someone representing your political interests just because they look like you or have the same sexual orientation.
Imagine if you were a black St. Louisan and Clarence Thomas was your alderman. You certainly wouldn’t feel better about him because of the color of his skin and the fact that he makes the board more diverse.
UR, you’re simply perpetuating stereotypes of minority groups by suggesting that representatives that have a certain physical characteristic will behave a certain way when in office and thus add to the diversity in our government.
Several people have alluded to gerrymandering and ward boundaries…
Careful examination of statistical data can help politicians (who are responsible for drawing the boundaries) create districts that are more likely to be controllable and predictable. People who have minority positions can be effectively cut out of the process by including their geographic area within a larger, more cohesive, or better organized district. The corollary to this argument is that small geographic areas that do not have much in common with the greater ward have the tendency to be ignored. Neighborhoods that are fractured into several pieces within larger wards have a weakened ability to act as a cohesive unit.
This makes perfect political sense because politicians cater to the power base. In plain words, money is power – there is little incentive for a politician to spend their political capital where the return on investment is low.
Every 10 years, the United States is obligated to perform a census of its population. The modern census measures hundreds of variables from age and race to number of bathrooms in housing units and time traveled to work. These census figures are used to distribute public resources, determine public policy, and of course define voting districts and political boundaries.
The combination of elected politicians being responsible for drawing their own legislative districts, the wealth of voting and census information available, and the use of computers to “crunch” the numbers results in the creation of Ward boundaries that are both illogical and hurtful to their constituencies.
Gerrymandering is still used locally to create majority-minority districts to ensure representation of individual groups (Blacks/African-Americans in St. Louis) in local government. It is used as political punishment (relocation of the 20th ward from the North side to the South side in the last redistricting). The other reason is, of course, to preserve political power and promote re-election for current office-holders.
Steve:
Diversity is great, and I am full supporter of having diversity in, among other establishments, government, but when we begin to force diversity by focusing on the personal traits and characteristics of candidates, we erode the purpose of diversity. Instead, we should be blind to all factors other than the vision and ability of candidates. Discussions, such as this, do nothing more than further the division in our community.
discussion can in no way hinder progress. while avoiding discussion has NEVER led to progress. and the unfortunate fact is that society is NOT yet blind to these factors. ignoring them is not going to lead to diversity, just continuation of the status quo.
“Either race matters or it doesn’t. You can’t have it both ways.”
Well, it does matter despite your trying to read other people’s views into mine. And I’m not a “liberal,” I’m a socialist — huge difference.
I helped develop those web sites presenting Census data, and the simple answer is the City is simply repackaging data provided by the US Census Bureau, hopefully in a more user-friendly way, with a map. The categories are those used by the Census Bureau, plain and simple. The labels may have been simplified/shortened; if so, it’s probably my doing.
The Census Bureau changed the form to allow people to check multiple boxes in 2000. Hence the “Two or More Races” classification. And Hispanic is completely separate.
As for African-American not being “a race…[but] a social classification” — many would say that race itself is purely a social construct. But I’m not ready to dive into that murky water at the moment.