Chicago's problems are nothing new. Violence, police abuse, population decline and mounting debt have long commanded a national spotlight.

But living in Chicago, you often hear from civic leaders that there is nowhere better. Our great struggles are treated like the weather: harsh and volatile, but ultimately beyond control. Well-informed critics from outside city limits are dismissed out of hand.

That's why three years ago, we began exploring a simple question: What if Chicago picked up its head and looked around?

After interviewing dozens of leaders and analyzing the structure of government in the 15 most populous cities in the nation, including Chicago, the results are in: Chicago's antiquated model of government is an outlier. It has failed its citizens. And the politically powerful must humbly look outward for solutions.

One of the most obvious problems with Chicago governance is on display right now.

Mayor Rahm Emanuel is not running for re-election. The race to replace him is afoot. Chicagoans will vote for mayor and local aldermen on Feb. 26, and if one candidate doesn't get more than 50 percent of the vote, there will be a run-off between the top two vote-getters in early April.

Recall that city leaders treat big problems like the weather. Well, the weather is a problem for city elections, and leaders know it. Of the top 15 cities, Chicago is the only one to hold municipal elections in February of an odd year.

For anyone who has visited Chicago in February, it's unsurprising that voter turnout is regularly half that of presidential elections. This severe and unique form of voter suppression has allowed motivated special interests to re-elect incumbents with ease for decades.

Restoring accountability in Chicago requires more inclusive elections. Here's a hint on how to make that happen: Most other big cities hold municipal elections in November.

It's important to know that this system was designed with one person in mind: the mayor.

Other major cities evolved from a mayor-centric model decades ago after tireless energy and wisdom from thousands of smart, committed reformers. But the clearest finding in our work has been that Chicago still puts far more authority in the mayor's office than any of those cities.

The results speak for themselves.

Just take the city's finances. Chicago has more pension debt than 44 of the 50 states. No other city has more municipal debt per capita. Enormous burdens have been tied to the backs of the young and unborn. Why?

New York City, Los Angeles, Houston and Philadelphia all have an elected controller who serves as a check on the mayor's budget making. Three of those cities require some form of voter approval for tax hikes or new debt. Chicago has neither of those firewalls.

What about City Council? In most major cities, the legislature serves as a robust check on the executive.

Chicago is home to 50 aldermen, which amounts to one for every 54,000 residents. The average among the 15 largest cities is more than 117,000. This bloated legislative body provides no serious analysis or dissidence on citywide issues like the budget. Aldermen are too busy exercising feudal dominance of their wards – overseeing permits, zoning changes, simple business signs and other administrative tasks that invite corruption. Big decisions are left to the big chief, the mayor.

The fiscal consequences are shocking. For example, Chicago spends as much on police and fire protection as Los Angeles, a city with 45 percent more residents and double the land area. It's clear which city has better provision of these services. In LA, the homicide rate is less than a third of Chicago's, civilians have extraordinary oversight of policing and the firefighters have a much bigger job on their hands.

One area where Chicagoans have started to notice their outlier status in governance is in the schools.

Chicago is rare in empowering the mayor to appoint the school board. Unfortunately, Chicago Public Schools' troubles run much deeper than can be fixed by simply electing its leadership. The same forward-thinking Chicagoans who recognize our city's form of school governance is an outlier must apply the same ingenuity to school finances and school choice. A 10-year plan that takes into account declining enrollment, demand for charter schools and a crushing debt load that has resulted in a junk credit rating for the school system would be a breath of fresh air.

Likewise, the police department is run directly by the mayor. He hires and fires the chief at whim. Looming oversight by a federal judge, the result of a consent decree, does not measure up to the professionalism and civilian oversight of a city like Los Angeles, which completely turned around an abysmal policing reputation.

The single most important step Chicago could take to catch up to its peers and prepare for the future is to adopt a city charter. Of the top 15 cities by population, only Indianapolis and Chicago lack true written constitutions for their government.

That charter would establish a smaller, stronger City Council and other independent checks on mayoral power.

Making these changes will require more than the will of a single politician. They will require broad support from important civil institutions and changes in state law.

Most of all, they will require citizens to fix a typographical error in their thinking.

It's not a question of "who" can save the city, but "how" to change governance. The lived experience of Chicago's sisters lights the path forward.