Comparative Analysis of City Council Size and Structure in Large
U.S. City Charters
Prepared by the National Civic League
Center for Democracy Innovation
February 2026
Executive Summary
This memo provides a comparative, charter-level overview of how large U.S. cities structure their city councils and elections, with a focus on council size, district design, and voting systems. It is intended to support informed deliberation by documenting the range of models currently in use among peer cities, rather than advocating for any specific outcome.
Los Angeles currently operates with a 15-member City Council elected from single-member districts, resulting in approximately one councilmember per 260,000 residents, a substantially higher representation ratio than any other major U.S. city. Peer cities employ a wide variety of approaches to legislative representation, reflecting different tradeoffs among constituent access, governance capacity, administrative complexity, and political accountability.
Rather than presenting a ranked list of recommendations, this memo organizes existing approaches into a set of distinct structural models. These models illustrate the design choices available to Los Angeles and clarify how changes to council size, geographic representation, and election methods can be combined or sequenced. The goal is to help decision-makers and participants understand the practical implications of
different options, avoid internally contradictory recommendations, and identify structures that can be clearly translated into charter language and, ultimately, ballot measures.
Relationship to Prior Commission Work
The Commission has previously received reports and testimony examining potential City Council reforms, including district expansion scenarios, voting system changes, and anticipated impacts on representation, governance, and turnout. This memo is intended to complement that work by providing a comparative overview of how large U.S. cities structure their city councils and elections at the charter level. It does not evaluate specific proposals or predict outcomes, but instead documents existing models and institutional arrangements used in peer cities.
What Los Angeles Currently Does
The City of Los Angeles operates under a mayor-council form of government with a unicameral City Council serving as the City’s legislative body.
Council Size
The Los Angeles City Council consists of 15 members. Each councilmember represents a single district and serves a four-year term. Council elections are staggered.
District Structure
Councilmembers are elected from single-member districts, with each district drawn to contain approximately equal population based on the decennial census. There are no at-large seats, multi-member districts, or regional/borough-based representation structures. Each councilmember serves as the sole representative for their geographic district.
Election Method
City Council elections are nonpartisan and use a two-round system, with a runoff between the top two candidates if no candidate receives a majority in the initial election.
Peer City Approaches
Large U.S. cities vary widely in how they structure legislative representation, even among jurisdictions with similar sizes and mayor-council forms of government. Key points of variation include council size, the population represented by each councilmember, district versus at-large seats, and election methods.
Across peer cities, no single model dominates. Instead, cities adopt different structures in response to population size, governance history, and local political and legal contexts.
Key dimensions of variation
● Council size and representation ratio.
Council sizes among large cities range from fewer than 10 members to more than 50. As a result, the number of residents represented by each councilmember varies dramatically, affecting constituent access and workload.
● District structure.
Cities use single-member districts, mixed systems combining district and at-large seats, or (less commonly) multi-member districts. Mixed systems are often intended to balance localized representation with citywide perspectives.
● Voting systems.
Most large cities use plurality elections with or without runoff requirements, while a growing number have adopted ranked-choice voting (RCV) for municipal offices.
Models Available to Los Angeles
Peer cities use a range of approaches to structure city council representation and elections. These approaches differ along three primary dimensions: the number of councilmembers, the geographic basis of representation, and the method used to elect councilmembers. Based on practices in large and mid-sized U.S. cities, several distinct models are available.
Model 1: Expand Single-Member District Councils
Under this model, the city retains single-member districts but increases the number of districts and council members, reducing the population represented by each councilmember.
Where it is used
● New York City: 51 councilmembers elected from single-member districts, representing approximately 160,000 residents each. City Council primaries use ranked-choice voting; general elections use plurality voting.
● Chicago: 50 council members elected from single-member districts, representing approximately 54,000 residents each. Elections are nonpartisan and use a two-round runoff system if no candidate receives a majority.
● San Diego: 9 council members elected from single-member districts, representing approximately 153,000 residents each, with a primary and general election runoff structure.
● San Francisco: 11 councilmembers elected from single-member districts, representing approximately 77,000 residents each, using ranked-choice voting.
Comparison to Los Angeles
Los Angeles currently has 15 single-member districts, a structure more similar in size to Houston (16) and Philadelphia (17) than to NYC or Chicago. An expanded district model would retain the existing structure while adjusting the number of seats.
Council size and representation ratios
Los Angeles currently has approximately one councilmember for every 260,000 residents, a substantially higher constituent-to-representative ratio than any other large U.S. cities. For comparison, peer cities commonly fall within a range of roughly 50,000 to 170,000 residents per
councilmember. Applying those ratios to Los Angeles’ population suggests that a council of approximately 26 members would correspond to roughly 150,000 residents per district, while a council of approximately 40 members would correspond to roughly 100,000 residents per district. These
figures are illustrative and reflect population-based comparisons.
Council staffing and service models.
City Council staffing structures vary significantly across large U.S. cities and are closely tied to council size, district population, and service expectations. In Los Angeles, council district offices commonly employ between approximately 12 and 28 staff members, reflecting the size of
districts and the scope of constituent service, casework, and field operations handled at the district level.
By contrast, council offices in New York City typically employ fewer than ten staff members, supported by a standardized annual staffing allocation of approximately $521,000 per councilmember, while Chicago provides a wage allowance sufficient for approximately two to three full-time staff per councilmember. These differences reflect varying approaches to the division of responsibilities between council offices, centralized city services, and administrative agencies.
Charter Considerations
Council size and district structure are typically established in city charters, while district boundaries are adjusted through redistricting processes following the census.
Model 2: Mixed District and At-Large Council
This model combines district-elected council members with a smaller number of at-large members elected citywide. All council members generally hold equal legislative authority.
Where it is used
● Houston: 16 council members, including 11 elected from districts and 5 elected at large.
● Philadelphia: 17 council members, including 10 elected from districts and 7 elected at large. Philadelphia uses a limited voting system for at-large seats, under which voters may cast fewer votes than the number of seats available.
Comparison to Los Angeles
Los Angeles currently does not include any at-large representation on the City Council. Among the next-largest U.S. cities after New York City and Chicago, Houston and Philadelphia both use mixed systems.
Charter Considerations
Mixed systems require charter provisions specifying the number of district and at-large seats and the method of electing at-large members.
Model 3: Multi-Member Districts
In a multi-member district system, each geographic district elects more than one councilmember. Elections are often paired with ranked-choice or proportional voting methods to fill multiple seats.
Where it is used
● Portland: The city is divided into four districts, each electing three councilmembers, for a total of twelve councilmembers. Council members are elected using ranked-choice voting in multi-member districts.
○ Stated Rational: In 2022, Portland adopted a multi-member district council structure as part of a voter-approved charter reform that expanded the City Council and replaced at-large elections with district-based representation. Contemporary descriptions of the reform characterize it as a response to dissatisfaction with the City’s prior governance system and a desire to restructure council composition and elections. Multi-member districts were selected to increase the number of council members while organizing representation around larger geographic districts, paired with ranked-choice voting as the election method.
Comparison to Los Angeles
Multi-member districts are relatively uncommon among very large U.S. cities but are used in some jurisdictions to combine geographic representation with larger councils and alternative voting methods.
Charter Considerations
Multi-member districts typically require charter-level specification of district structure, number of seats per district, and the voting method used to fill those seats.
Model 4: Regional or Borough-Style Representation (Supplementary)
Regional or borough-style representation organizes political representation around large geographic sub-units of a city, such as boroughs or regions. These units may elect officials with advisory, planning, or executive roles, rather than legislative voting authority.
Where it is used
● New York City: The city has five elected Borough Presidents, each representing one borough. Borough Presidents are not members of the City Council and do not vote on legislation. Their roles include appointments to community boards and advisory input on land use, capital planning,
and service delivery.
Context for Los Angeles
In U.S. cities, regional or borough-style representation most commonly exists alongside district-based councils, rather than replacing them. These structures provide an additional layer of geographic representation and coordination.
Charter Considerations
Such roles are typically established in the charter as supplementary institutions with defined advisory or administrative functions.
Model 5: Voting System Overlays (Ranked-Choice Voting)
Ranked-choice voting (RCV) is an election method that can be layered onto different council structures. RCV allows voters to rank candidates in order of preference. RCV can be applied to single-member or multi-member districts and can replace plurality or runoff elections.
Where it is used for City Councils
● New York City: RCV is used in party primaries and special elections for City Council.
● San Francisco, CA: RCV is used for City Council elections in single-member districts.
● Cambridge, MA: RCV is used in at-large City Council elections.
● Redondo Beach, Salt Lake City, and Austin also use RCV for local elections.
Documented experience
New York City’s first citywide use of ranked-choice voting (RCV) in 2021 represents the largest municipal implementation of RCV in the United States to date, following voter approval of a charter amendment in 2019. Post-election analyses document that a majority of voters participating in City
Council races used the option to rank more than one candidate, that ballots were successfully tabulated through multiple rounds as designed, and that election administration proceeded without the need for separate runoff elections. The analyses also document overall turnout levels in the primary election and variation in ranking behavior across districts.
Charter Considerations
RCV is often established through charter amendment, with administrative details specified by ordinance or election law.
These models are not mutually exclusive. Cities frequently combine changes to council size, district structure, and election method when revising their charters. The examples above illustrate distinct design approaches that could be considered.
