Proportional representation

In the spring of 1776, the provincial Congress of North Carolina (the precursor to a state legislative body that existed prior to independence from Britain) asked future President John Adams (then an agitator for independence and a delegate from Massachusetts to the Continental Congress) for advice on how to draft a constitution for an independent state. Adams responded by publishing “Thoughts on Government,” a short treatise on the topic. Here is what he wrote at the outset:

The principal difficulty lies, and the greatest care should be employed, in constituting this representative assembly. It should be in miniature an exact portrait of the people at large. It should think, feel, reason and act like them. That it may be the interest of this assembly to do strict justice at all times, it should be an equal representation, or, in other words, equal interests among the people should have equal interests in it.

Adams is describing the principle of proportional representation. Different groups of people have different interests, and if a particular proportion of the people shares some interest, then an equal proportion of the legislature should too. More succinctly, a share of votes means an equal share of seats. Unfortunately, the connection between this principle and voting methods was not understood at the time. Voting methods we now call “proportional representation” weren’t invented until nearly a century later.

The principle of proportional representation

Under the principle of proportional representation, a share of voters elects an equal share of representatives. It is the logical extension of “one person, one vote”: If every vote is truly equal, then 30 percent of votes should elect 30 percent of seats, and likewise for every significant bloc of votes.

In a multi-party political system, political parties are essentially shorthand for these blocs of voters. As a result, proportional representation may be defined as political parties earning seats in proportion to the share of the vote. But partisanship is not the only way voters group themselves, particularly in the United States with its unusual two-party system.

The Pew Research Center’s Political Typology sorts American voters into nine categories based on various positions on national and international issues, yet voters in all categories generally prefer either the Republican or Democratic Parties.[1] Likewise, some voters may be less interested in ideology and instead vote based on a shared community (preferring to vote for candidates who share their religion, say), which may not always track their political party preference. But voting is never something an individual does in isolation. Whether they’re aware of it or not, voters vote as part of some bloc of voters, and, however defined, that bloc should elect its fair share of representation.

Another way to think about proportional representation is that it requires both full and fair representation.

• Full representation means everyone — that is, the full electorate — has some degree of representation: Instead of one group winning and everyone else losing, every sufficiently large group of voters has the power to elect someone they support. It is a system where all voters, or as close to every voter as possible, voted for and helped elect a representative, who is in some way accountable to them.
• Fair representation means that groups of voters elect representatives in proportion to their share of the votes. So, 30 percent of voters elect about 30 percent of seats. Unlike today’s elections, a minority of voters should not be able to elect a majority of seats (like in 2012 when voters favored Democrats yet Republicans won a majority in the House of Representatives), nor are they unfairly shut out.

Some argue that minority groups winning representation runs counter to majority rule. This is backwards: Proportional representation is a precondition for genuine majority rule. If a majority group can elect the entire legislature, and only a majority of those legislators enacts policies, then those policies are only in the interests of a majority of a majority — which may be a small minority of the people themselves. If, say, 60 percent of people are represented, and 60 percent of the representatives vote in favor of a policy, then a policy has passed despite earning support from the representatives of only 36 percent of people (60 percent of 60 percent is 36 percent).

If the legislature does not accurately reflect the whole voting public, then the interests of any overrepresented groups become privileged. Central to the idea of a republican form of government is that no group’s interests are privileged over others.

The opposing principle to proportional representation is winner-take-all. This is the idea that instead of different groups being represented in reasonable proportion to their numbers, one group and only one group — generally the majority group — wins everything in an election. This implicitly assumes that the largest or most powerful group is better than the others, or at least better able to serve the interests of the people generally. That idea is indefensible in a pluralistic society. Trying to elect only the “best group” essentially favors the interests of some and excludes others.

Proportional voting methods

Almost all U.S. elections are winner-take-all. Single-winner districts are always winner-take-all, though that point is often obscured by debates over district lines. All representatives are elected in their own districts, which, regardless of their fairness, yield only one victor per district. When only one person wins, only one group of voters is represented, and it’s usually the majority group. All others get nothing. If a single-winner district votes 60 percent for a Republican candidate and 40 percent for a Democratic candidate, the winner will be 100 percent Republican.

However, with single-winner districts, different groups are represented to the extent they make up the majority within their own, different districts. Under fully winner-take-all systems, the largest group of voters can win everything: 100 percent of all available political representation. In contrast, district systems are not fully winner-take-all because different groups win representation within different districts. District systems are not proportional, though. Rather, they’re like quota systems, with preordained numbers of red, blue, and/or purple districts (and with each drawn with varying levels of electoral certainty). As a result, the real competition occurs not during the election but during the redistricting process, when district maps are drawn and political quotas are set.

In other words, the most decisive parts of our politics are not elections themselves but rather district maps. Our system is, first and foremost, a gerrymandering system. That is especially clear when competing groups intentionally rig maps in their favor, like when North Carolina state representative David Lewis openly said “I think electing Republicans is better than electing Democrats. So, I drew this map to help foster what I think is better for the country.”[2]

But, even if the lines were drawn by a hypothetical saint who possesses some mythical ability to remain politically neutral, those lines — not the ensuing elections — would still determine how fair representation will be overall.

The counterpoint to districts and other winner-take-all voting methods are the proportional voting methods, which necessarily occur in multi-winner districts or across the entire jurisdiction. These voting methods achieve proportional representation by ensuring that  groups of voters who vote similarly elect their preferred candidates in proportion to their numbers. For example, in 2020, 60 percent of voters in Connecticut voted for Democrats for Congress while 40 percent voted for Republicans; with proportional representation, Connecticut’s five representatives would all be elected statewide, and those votes would have elected three Democrats and two Republicans (with Connecticut’s districts, they elected five Democrats and zero Republicans).

With proportional voting methods, there is no gerrymandering. Groups don’t fight for districts to win seats; they fight for votes within multi-winner districts. With earning votes as the sole way of earning seats, parties and candidates would work harder to earn support both during the campaign and while in office, making the campaign more dynamic and governance more focused on the needs and interests of real people.

Three popular systems

Since the invention of proportional voting methods in the mid-19th century, three categories of systems have gained widespread adoption:

1. Party list: The voter votes for a political party, and each party earns seats in proportion to the number of votes the party received.
   • In a closed list system, the political parties choose the individual representatives who fill those seats.
   • In an open list system, voters vote for a candidate of their preferred party, which counts as a vote for that party; then the votes for the candidates of each party are tallied and those who earned the most are seated to represent the party. An open list election is sort of like a closed list election and a primary election held at the same time.
2. Mixed member proportional (MMP): Voters are in single-winner districts but cast two votes — one for the candidate they want to represent their district and the other for the political party they prefer overall. First, the candidates are elected in the districts. Then, the party vote awards seats to parties in a way that compensates for how they may have been under- or overrepresented in the district results, which ensures proportionality between party votes and seats won. The overall result is the same as it would be under a party list system, but some representatives are elected in single-winner districts. This approach is used in Germany, New Zealand, Bolivia, and Lesotho, and is widely praised for guaranteeing a proportional result overall while still providing every voter with a local district representative. The process in New Zealand is well-described in a catchy pop song available on YouTube by New Zealand artist Jack Buchanan.
3. Proportional ranked choice voting: Voters are in large districts that elect several winners instead of one. Although there are several winners, each voter has only one vote; that way, each winner represents a different group of voters. Voters rank candidates in order of preference, choosing their favorite first and then their backups. A round-by-round count identifies the strongest candidates and avoids wasted votes, providing proportional representation within the district. In practice, this tends to result in proportional representation overall, provided the districts are sufficiently large and diverse. In addition to use in governmental elections, this approach is used by the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences to choose its Oscar nominees in order to ensure that a diverse set of nominees is chosen, rather than merely one sort of film over and over.

Each system has merits, and any form of proportional voting would improve on the winner-take-all systems used in the United States. However, proportional ranked choice voting is the best way to achieve proportional representation in the U.S. House. Rob Richie, President of FairVote, outlined a series of reasons why in an article for the Substack DemocracySOS in May, 2022. These include:

• Proportional ranked choice voting allows the use of an identical ranked ballot across proportional legislative and single-winner executive elected offices;
• It can be used in sub-national legislative elections, even in local non-partisan elections;
• It enables elected leaders to act on their own views, rather than being beholden to party leadership;
• It provides a level playing field for unaffiliated voters and independent candidates;
• It avoids wasted votes when proportionally electing only a few winners;
• It has already been proven consistent with the Voting Rights Act; and
• It fits our political culture of “big tent” political parties.

Many of these qualities come from the fact that proportional ranked choice voting is a candidate-centric proportional system, meaning that voters vote directly for candidates, not parties, and voting for candidates does not commit voters to supporting their party more broadly. That is important for the United States because the United States does not have a multi-party system, and the two major parties each have groups within them with significant differences from the rest of their party. Those groups include Justice Democrats (which includes Reps. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez of New York, Ayanna Pressley of Massachusetts, Ilhan Omar of Minnesota, and Rashida Tlaib of Michigan, aka “the squad”) and anti-Trump Republicans (Republicans opposed to the populist-nationalist Republican faction led by former President Donald Trump) and many others. Proportional ranked choice voting would allow voters to support these kinds of candidates but not other members of their party or to support their party without supporting those kinds of candidates. Where their backup support goes is completely up to the voter: For example, an anti-Trump Republican voter ranking candidates in a contest including moderates from both parties might rank an anti-Trump Republican candidate first, followed by a moderate Democrat. They could choose to return to party preference by ranking pro-Trump Republicans after that, or not. Either way, they are likely to successfully elect someone who genuinely represents their political interests.

Also, proportional ranked choice voting is the only proportional system that has been used for U.S. elections.[3] As of January, 2023, six cities use it (Albany CA, Arden DE, Cambridge MA, Eastpointe MI, Minneapolis MN, and Palm Desert CA), and two more plan to start using it in their next round of elections (Amherst MA and Portland OR).[4] The system has benefited from the much larger movement for ranked choice voting in general, which has normalized the superiority of ranking rather than choosing only one. No U.S. jurisdiction has ever used a party list or MMP system.

Party list and MMP systems do work well across a range of different countries. They have their proponents, and they deserve more attention in the United States.[5] But because proportional ranked choice voting is uniquely well-suited for congressional elections and already has significant momentum, it should be the focus of the American movement for proportional representation at the national level. The next chapter explains how proportional ranked choice voting works and how to apply it to the U.S. House.