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!