Skip to content
Subscribe

Is Proportional Representation the Future of Political Reform?

Is Proportional Representation the Future of Political Reform?
Published:

Momentum continues to build for broad systemic changes to how US citizens elect their public officials. Reforms like ranked choice voting and nonpartisan primaries are growing in popularity as voters look to solutions to make the political process fairer and voter-centric.

With 2020 near its end, political reformers are looking toward the future, and what proposals are working and what proposals need more attention. One proposal that is getting more attention from some reformers is proportional representation.

Benjamin Oestericher recently wrote for the national reform group FairVote that “studies of proportional and semi-proportional systems implemented in localities in the United States as well as other countries with more proportional systems consistently show that electoral systems without winner-take-all rules produce higher levels of both reflective and equitable representation.”

Right now, winner-takes-all defines most elections in the US -- something that sets the US apart from many other democratic methods throughout the world.

In the presidential election, for instance, a candidate doesn’t even need to get a majority of a state’s popular vote to take all of its electoral votes (in all states but Nebraska and Maine). In Congress, approximately 90% of seats are safe for one party or the other in any given election, which means a single party will always control nearly all seats.

The consequence? Right now the incentive for US policymakers is to serve the interests of their party over the interests of their constituents. Congress is plagued by partisan gridlock, efforts to push long-term solutions are marginalized, and whole communities across the country are left unrepresented.

Advocates of proportional representation argue that creating multi-seat congressional districts with proportional representation using an alternative voting method like ranked choice voting shifts the incentive structure to be more voter-focused and community-focused, because control is no longer with a single, private political organization

Here is how it works. Congress would have fewer districts, but the districts would be larger and would elect multiple representatives (the number of representatives elected should, in theory, be proportional to votes). Advocates of proportional representation argue that this eliminates gerrymandering and increases the voting power of individuals.

Image Credit: FairVote

Oestericher, for instance, wrote about the benefits proportional representation could have on communities of color.

“FairVote’s simulation of House seats under the Fair Representation Act, whereby representatives would be elected in multi-member districts via ranked choice voting under a proportional system, shows that African Americans would see their number of House representatives increase by more than 25%, Hispanic Americans by more than 40%, and Asian Americans seeing a three-fold increase in representation,” he writes.

“You could travel from California across the southern United States and up through Maryland, with every part of every state having representatives who were the preferred choice of people of color.”

It also creates an incentive to compete for the most voters possible. If a party wants more seats, it has to earn them by broadening its appeal. Thus, candidates and parties would, in theory, start listening to voters outside their base and communities that feel marginalized by the current system.‍

Greater accountability to voters means policymakers have to actually accomplish work that meets the needs and concerns of Americans.‍

Under the current system, the shift of power goes back and forth between the Republican and Democratic Parties. Voters feel like their only option is to go to one party or the other in hopes they will be listened to, and are left disenchanted when policymakers put party interests first.

Voters should not have to go to the parties; The parties should have to go to them to thrive. Under a democratic process, the voters should be the ultimate authority and the purpose of elections should be to put their interests first. This is the goal of nonpartisan reform, and advocates of proportional representation assert it goes a long way to meeting this goal.

Adhere to the IVN etiquette

By posting a comment, you agree to adhere to our etiquette rules: No partisan attacks, no personal attacks, substantiate your sources, no self-promotion.

Contact IVN

Questions about this article or our coverage? Send us a message. A free IVN member account is required.

Message sent

Thanks, we’ll review it and get back to you if needed.

Message not sent

Sorry, something went wrong. Please try again.

Sign in to send a message

Messages are tied to your IVN member account. Signing in is free and takes a few seconds.

Contact IVN

Questions about this article or our coverage? Send us a message. A free IVN member account is required.

Message sent

Thanks, we’ll review it and get back to you if needed.

Message not sent

Sorry, something went wrong. Please try again.

Sign in to send a message

Messages are tied to your IVN member account. Signing in is free and takes a few seconds.

Republish this article

Republishing guidelines

Republish IVN articles for free. Independent Voter News articles may be republished online or in print under a Creative Commons BY-NC-ND 4.0 license, on these terms:

  1. Credit the author and IVN. Keep the byline ("By Author Name, Independent Voter News") and the attribution note at the end, which links to the original.
  2. Keep the meaning. You may update time and place references and apply your house style. You may trim for length, as long as the cuts don't change the meaning or misrepresent the author. Keep the headline. Mark any additions as your own (for example "Additional reporting by ...").
  3. Translations are welcome. Translate faithfully, add "Translated from English by [your outlet]", and tell us at editor@ivn.us.
  4. Keep the links, including the link to the original article.
  5. Keep the tracking image. The HTML includes a 1-pixel image that counts readers on your page. It collects no personal information.
  6. Photos and illustrations. Images credited to IVN may be used with this article only. Images credited to others (AP, Getty, Unsplash, Wikimedia and so on) stay under their owners' terms. Secure the rights or switch "Include images" off.
  7. Don't sell it. You can't sell our articles or sell ads specifically against them. Your normal site advertising is fine.
  8. No implied endorsement. Don't suggest that IVN or the author endorses you, your candidates or your causes, or that donations to you support IVN.
  9. Keep labels. Opinion or analysis pieces keep that label.
  10. Point search engines to the original. Where your CMS allows, set the canonical URL to the original IVN article.
  11. No bulk or automated republishing, and don't submit our articles to aggregators (Apple News, Google News, MSN) as your own.
  12. Corrections and removals. Update your copy when we correct it, and remove it promptly if we ask. We'll contact you at the email you give us.
  13. Questions or print republication: editor@ivn.us.

IVN staff: fill in who you're inviting above, then create the invite.

Preparing the article

Is Proportional Representation the Future of Political Reform?

Choose a format
  • HTML
  • Email HTML
  • Markdown
  • Formatted (.docx)
  • Plain text
  • WordPress blocks
  • PDF
Choose a platform

Photos credited to others need their owners' permission.

To for

Republishing somewhere else? Questions? editor@ivn.us