Redlining Political Communities in Chicago and the United States - Part 2: Searching for Leverage, by the Numbers, Starting with Mayor Lightfoot (Voting Blocs Matter)

This is part 2 of how don't how long series of essays that I've titled Redlining Political Communities in Chicago and the United States. The series takes up the topic of two separate racist "encounters" that erupted around one weekend at the end of May 2019 between two business owners in Chicago's boystown and the black LGBTQ+ community of Chicago as a way to analyze how geography and segmenting of populations can influence politics in Chicago and allegorically to the United States.

If you want to catch up and not start in the middle, you can read Part 1 first. Part 3 has been completed and posted! Please feel free to move onto the next parts.


Clout and leverage, in the context of this situation, refers to direct, in the open, obvious characteristics like residents of a neighborhood that can vote for the local alderman (the current legal title in Chicago, even for women or other genders), having a business that likely contribute campaign funds to the alderman, or possibly advocating with their own alderman and/or mayor, indirectly or directly.

Advocating through the mayor probably provides the most direct access to "honest" clout in this situation. Every vote for the mayor helps Mayor Lori Lightfoot, whereas the alderman, Tom Tunney, alderman for the 44th ward 44th where these conflicts have occurred, doesn't depend on votes from residents of other wards.

Based on straight numbers, the mayor’s calculus for determining which votes matter might encourage the mayor to not take a conflict such as this one seriously. The total population of Chicago is estimated to be 2,716,450. A report in 2018 has estimated that the population that has claimed to be LGBT+ has come out to roughly 146,000. Not even taking into account the intersection of race and sexual identity, the claimed LGBT+ population is about 5% of the population of Chicago. Taking into account

• Margins of error
• People not open about being LGBT+
• Gender identities not taken into account in these surveys but who participate in these communities
• The intersection of race and sexual identity

I feel safe to say that the members of the aggressed upon group, Black LGBTQ+, probably still amount to somewhere between 3% to 4%. Either which way, when looked upon from a pure numbers perspective, this group doesn’t come off as a strong voting bloc.

The above analysis makes sense in a winner take all election system with few candidates. However, The Black LGBTQ+ voting bloc can gain more traction when taking into account a combination of the Chicago municipal electoral system and the size of the candidate pool. Chicago has two-step runoff elections if a single candidate doesn't get more than 50% of the vote during the first round of the election. If no candidate gets the majority vote, the candidates with the two highest whole percentage scores end up on the final ballot. The final ballot has likely never had more than two candidates, but in theory, it could happen.

In the last Chicago Municipal Elections, the first round ballot had 21 or 22 mayoral candidates. At the end of the first Election Night, front runners Lori Lightfoot got 17.54% of the vote and Toni Preckwinkle got 16.04%, granting them entry into the second round ballot. Bill Daley, the candidate that came in 3rd, got 14.78% of the vote. Making a non real-world assumption for illustrative purposes that Black LGBTQ+ Chicagoans didn't vote at all, if the estimated percentage of Black LGBTQ+ voters all voted for Daley (which I doubt they would), compared to the total population of Chicago without taking into account voter participation, Daley's percentage would have gotten up to 17.78%, taking first place knocking Preckwinkle out of the second-round race.

The numbers become even more interesting when taking into account that the first round of the election only had 35% voter participation. If the voter participation remained the same but the Black LGBTQ+ bloc was switched out with a completely different demographic, this community could swing the vote by approximately 8%. This calculated makes an assumption that a minimal amount of Black LGBTQ+ constituents voted in the actual election (these calculations are to illustrate a point, not make an argument about a voter blocs voter participation).

Adding in all the 3% African American LGBTQ+ participation to the 35% voter participation rather than switching them out with voters would increase participation to 38%, the African American LGBTQ+ community could still swing the vote by 7.89% if they voted as a single bloc in this situation. If this whole bloc had voted for the candidate in 5th place, Susana Mendoza, she would have come in second, either knocking out Preckwinkle OR taken part in the second round ballot as third candidate (again, a theoretical possibility that I don't have enough data to truly understand).

These calculations and argument don't aim to push for any particular candidate or make an argument about the participation of real people or real voting blocs in the election (since I don't know how the participation breaks down demographic wise). Rather, these premises aim to argue that votes matter, especially when consolidated into a voting bloc and when a lot of candidates run without political party monopolies. Black and brown people, Jewish people, LGBTQ+ people, working class people, women, and whatever category that goes unmentioned here are not monoliths. Nonetheless, when White Supremacy, implicit or explicit, erases and silences communities and groups because they express harmless but beautiful characteristics that Supremacists don't like, these communities sometimes need to come together as a voting bloc or group of voting blocs to fight as a group so that each individual can be heard and seen.

As to Lightfoot, advocating a cause to her with 3% to 8% of the voters makes for a good realpolitik defensive poltical position for her in a future "election brawl". The additional voter share would better bolster her chances of winning as any additional votes would. In addition, keeping those votes away from other candidates weakens the other candidates' positions for receiving a "referendum" and developing momentum to challenge Lightfoot as much. Mayor Lightfoot also wouldn't have to divide her attention as much during the campaign if she gains the appreciation and gratitude of a voting block while continuing to deliver to that voting bloc.

By the numbers, a voter share of 3% to 8% can still amount to a lot when the election field reaches a large enough size. The numbers provide a good argument for the Black LGBTQ+ voter bloc advocating their cause with Mayor Lightfoot.

But what about other, softer factors and characteristics could win or lose Mayor Lightfoot for this cause?

Part 3 and Part 4 have been completed and posted! Please feel free to move onto the next parts.

If you like what you see here and in the past and want to free me up for more, support my endeavors by Buying Me a Coffee or patronizing me via Patreon.

You can also check me out on Twitter at @screwjaw and Mastadon at @screwjaw@mastodon.social for articles, short form stuff, and a higher frequency/volume of opinions and truth!

Redlining Political Communities in Chicago and the United States - Part 1: Racism in Boystown & the Challenge of Affecting Popular Change and Redress

This is part 1 of how don't how long series of essays that I've titled Redlining Political Communities in Chicago and the United States. The series takes up the topic of two separate racist "encounters" that erupted around one weekend at the end of May 2019 between two business owners in Chicago's boystown and the black LGBTQ+ community of Chicago as a way to analyze how geography and segmenting of populations can influence politics in Chicago and allegorically to the United States.

Part 2 and Part 3 have been completed and posted! Please feel free to move onto the next parts.

About 3 weeks ago, two racist conflicts arose that centered around the Boystown neighborhood in Chicago that the following three articles elaborate upon:

• ”Group Calls For Beatnix Boycott After Boystown Store Owner Called Cops On Customers Who Complained About Confederate Flag Vest” - Block Club Chicago
  
  
• ”Rap Ban May Be Lifted At Progress Bar, But Boystown Needs To Confront Its History Of Racism, Activists Say” - Block Club Chicago
  
  
• ”Store owner calls cops on black man for asking why he sells a Confederate flag vest” - Raw Story
  

During the week afterward, at least one community group largely made up of the group effected, Black LGBTQ+ people, had two events to start addressing the conflict:

• An education/information rally in a neighborhood parking lot
  
  
• A brainstorming/planning meeting at a church in an adjacent neighborhood

I participated in the meeting later in the week at the church. A striking phenomenon became apparent at this meeting: most of the people at the meeting didn't have obvious clout in the neighborhood (not being residents, not being business owners). However, these effected people had skin in the game, having contributed and continue to contribute to the LGBTQ+ community in Boystown. Many at the meeting expressed that they had gotten so much emotional support from Boystown that these two racist conflicts felt like a huge betrayal and made these people question what they gave to and have gotten from Boystown.

These feelings from the aggressed against the aggressors has validity and lie on the right side of the conflict. Nonetheless, these people have minimal local neighborhood clout since they don't live there. The aggressors, on the other hand, have clout as a business and a possible neighborhood resident. The only recourse for the aggressed upon seems to be:

• A legal appeal to a higher power (the city, the state, and/or even the country since this could be considered a civil rights violation, at least in a more sensical age)
  
  
• A public relations/moral suasion approach

The meeting didn't discuss legal appeals much. At least two people, however, sounded like they came from a City of Chicago department that addresses these types of issues and volunteered to discuss legal and advocacy options. A general consensus existed that legal options for these two conflicts would take awhile and, to some degree, would likely happen. Legal appeals, however, probably wouldn't need or allow the assistance of everyone who want to express their anger and sadness through action, and who want to make a difference.

These people who wouldn't have involvement in the legal fight would need to get involved in the political public relations/moral suasion campaign. This approach begs a question: Without political clout or any obvious leverage, how does this community (Black LGBTQ+) within a community (larger LGBTQ+ community, especially those who patronize Boystown establishments) push for their inclusion and to be taken seriously as a group and individuals that should be seen and heard?

I should have posted this Part 1 last week. The whole concept felt a lot simpler in my head than it has come out so far in my drafting. As things stand now, Part 2 could be lengthy with a portion of some wonky strategic political and public relations stuff. Writing it has taken a few days of random bits of empty time while on buses, at lunch, etc. etc. I don't know how long this series of essays will be. Please stay tuned to see where it will go!

Part 2, Part 3, and Part 4 have been completed and posted! Please feel free to move onto the next parts.

If you like what you see here and in the past and want to free me up for more, support my endeavors by Buying Me a Coffee or patronizing me via Patreon.

You can also check me out on Twitter at @screwjaw and Mastadon at @screwjaw@mastodon.social for articles, short form stuff, and a higher frequency/volume of opinions and truth!

PREVIEW: Relevant News Articles for a Future Essay, "Redlining Political Communities"

I've started writing a pretty wonky and lengthy analysis about affecting structural change through politics, culture, and markets in reaction to a concentration of intersectional conflict that occurred in my neighborhood about a week and half ago. You will need to wait until next week or so to delve into the wonkiness.

For now, though, here are the articles I provide in the essay that provide descriptions of the conflicts and some context to the conflicts:

• "Group Calls For Beatnix Boycott After Boystown Store Owner Called Cops On Customers Who Complained About Confederate Flag Vest" - Book Club Chicago
  
  
• "Rap Ban May Be Lifted At Progress Bar, But Boystown Needs To Confront Its History Of Racism, Activists Say" - Book Club Chicago
  
  
• "Store owner calls cops on black man for asking why he sells a Confederate flag vest" - Raw Story

If you like what you see here and in the past and want to free me up for more, support my endeavors by Buying Me a Coffee or patronizing me via Patreon.

You can also check me out on Twitter at @screwjaw and Mastadon at @screwjaw@mastodon.social for articles, short form stuff, and a higher frequency/volume of opinions and truth!

Does Scarcity of Market Share Lead Billionaires, Entrepreneurs, and Crony Politicians into Tunnel Vision for More Market Share?

Only after the second chapter of Scarcity: Why Having Too Little Means So Much, Sendhil Mullainathan and Eldar Shafir present an argument that scarcity creates an involuntary tunnel vision effect with attention. This book so far bolsters a hypothesis that I'm coming up with: that billionaires, successful entrepreneurs, and crony politicians in capitalist cultures forge paths of growth and accumulating more rather than sharing and supporting society by fighting against material scarcity because the billionaires, successful entrepreneurs, and crony politicians are stuck in a mindset of scarcity.

But a scarcity of what? It's not material wealth. Maybe it's time, but they could easily hand off things. Maybe privacy, authenticity of people around them, genuine relationships with people, etc. etc. No, accumulating more and more material things wouldn't help address those scarcities except for maybe paying more for security to guard against sycophants.

Maybe the billionaire, the successful entrepreneur, the crony politician feel a scarcity of attention market share. Even those with the biggest market share now have to fear competitors and innovators that threaten to make the billionaire/successful entrepreneur/crony politician obsolete. Because lose that market share, especially with a lavish lifestyle, the billionaire/successful entrepreneur/crony politician risks losing their lifestyle and possibly losing all their material wealth. They would fall into material scarcity, which they may never have experienced before or have a memory of material scarcity being a horrible experience.

And today's capitalist, competitive business, finance, and political culture further exacerbates this sense of scarcity for the billionaires, successful entrepreneurs, and crony politicians. This hypothesis doesn't look to garner sympathy for these billionaires and successful entrepreneurs (and politicians that have gained power through the lobbyists that advocate for these businesses, billionaires, and successful entrepreneurs) because this path hurts society more than it helps.

Heck, as an aside, just look at how much middle and high school culture in the United States supports the importance of popularity and market share of attention instead of being a good person.

Rather, I seek to indict society and developed Western culture for building up this ideology and inflicting people with this state of mind. Any thoughts on this hypothesis? Any thoughts on fighting this phenomenon? Any objections?

If you like what you see here and in the past and want to free me up for more, support my endeavors by Buying Me a Coffee or patronizing me via Patreon.

You can also check me out on Twitter at @screwjaw and Mastadon at @screwjaw@mastodon.social for articles, short form stuff, and a higher frequency/volume of opinions and truth!