Quote:
Originally Posted by moorhosj
Isn't it possible that this setup would just make the remaining 10 aldermen more powerful and provide more avenues for corruption?
I get the idea as a cost savings measure (lower payroll and less "menu" money), but I'm not sold that it would lower corruption. That seems like a different set of problems.
|
Shrinking the size of the City Council is just incredibly short-sighted. Whatever savings are wrung out of the process will be minuscule compared to the consequences of concentrating power in fewer individuals and the dilution that will result for individual voters. When fewer people represent more citizens it takes a lot more time, power, money, and people in order to reach the critical mass needed to influence the decision-making process of your representative. This kind of concentration disadvantages the public versus larger and wealthier interests since the latter have the resources to reach the ear of such officials whilst the former will need to spend a lot more time accumulating that kind of power.
With more power will come more opportunity for corruption. With fewer people involved you'll have a smaller circle of potential co-conspirators and thus a lower probability of leaks.