Introduction
In 1787, James Madison, often called the father of the United States Constitution, penned an essay that would become one of the most influential pieces of political writing in the United States. The tenth essay in the Federalist Papers, the anonymously published writings defending the new Constitution, describes the dangers of what he calls “the violence of faction,” and how it can be broken and controlled by a well-constructed union.
Madison identified that different groups of people will want different things, and if any one such group can get what they want by suppressing the others, they will. Extinguishing such self-interest just does not work: it is baked into human nature. Rather, the remedy requires many factions to each have their own share of power, with no one faction ever winning it all.
When it comes to different groups wanting different things, Madison and the other founders had no idea what was in store for the United States. The electors of his time were a far smaller slice of a far smaller pie. If Madison was right that different interests must have representation lest the white landowning men from Georgia mistreat the white landowning men from Connecticut, then his insight surely carries much greater force today, when all manner of racial, gender, and class politics are included in representative democracy.
Unfortunately, Madison’s solutions to the violence of faction did not anticipate the many dimensions that define today’s factions. He mostly considered political competition between the states, and therefore dedicated a lot of attention to the question of apportionment. He did not consider political competition between two big national political parties. That is because he and everyone else alive in 1787 did not yet understand the critical link between political power and how a nation conducts its elections.
In the centuries since, we have learned a lot. In the latter half of the 19th century, political theorists developed new ways of conducting elections that we call proportional representation. These methods ensure that different groups of voters can each elect a share of power proportional to their numbers. In the 20th century, many countries adopted forms of proportional representation, and we learned a lot more about the different systems and their impacts.
In the meantime, the United States stuck with the winner-take-all voting methods that we inherited from the English countryside in the 18th century. Some did advocate for updating to the new proportional voting methods when they were invented, but their success was limited, and their project abandoned. Governance in the United States would have been better had they succeeded, but in the apparent stability of the two party system that developed during the 20th century, reform did not seem urgent.
That has changed. We now live in a time when national-level partisan polarization drives politics. In every congressional election, around 90% of districts have no meaningful competition at all. Polarization of the two major parties has created a self-reinforcing cycle of distrust that has already resulted in one abortive insurrection. We urgently need to break and control the violence of faction. The question is “how?”
Our Shared Republic
This project makes the case, in an honest and thorough way, for a critically needed change to the system of government in the United States: To alter the method of election for the United States House of Representatives from the current winner-take-all methods to an American, candidate-based form of proportional representation called proportional ranked choice voting.
This proposal is actionable, even in these polarized times. It requires a simple statute, not a constitutional amendment. If adopted, voters would elect representatives to serve in either statewide districts or large, regional districts that would each elect several members. Candidates would compete for their own shares of the votes within multi-winner districts, so that those elected would both fully and fairly represent the diversity of values and interests in their districts. Voters could rank candidates in order of choice, ensuring that they could vote sincerely, rather than tactically, and that their votes would carry real political power, no matter where they are cast.
The change would have many benefits. Although new to congressional elections, it would align well with the political history and culture of the United States. It would more perfectly institute the vision of the federal republic first articulated by James Madison, and magnify the effectiveness of political reforms since. Politics would, of course, remain messy, but it would be driven toward greater expression of the public good. The polarized two-party system — which has us on a crash course of escalating political hardball — would erode, as members would gain new opportunities and incentives to work across geographic and party boundaries for creative policies that speak to the needs and interests of a majority of Americans.
These benefits are not speculative or theoretical. They draw on evidence from actual uses of proportional ranked choice voting, uses of other proportional and semi-proportional voting methods both in the United States and internationally, and uses of single-winner ranked choice voting in state and local elections.
At this political moment, there is broad consensus that our political system must change, but there are disagreements as to exactly how it must do so. A lot of ideas, many quite ambitious, are on the table. Proportional ranked choice voting can provide an invaluable tool to help address our most intractable political issues; yet for too many it remains entirely unknown, is seen as hopelessly abstract, or is dismissed as unrealistic. This project aims to correct that, by providing a foundational collection of arguments for why proportional ranked choice voting is critically needed, and how close at hand it really is.
Why reform the House of Representatives?
The House of Representatives holds a privileged place in our constitutional structure. Indeed, under the plan originally proposed by James Madison in 1787, the House of Representatives would have been supreme over all other branches. The House would have elected the Senate, and then the House and Senate would have selected the President and appointed judges. The House and Senate also would have had veto power over all state legislation.
Over the course of the Constitutional Convention, the power of the House of Representatives was whittled down by compromise, but it remained the only body in the Constitution directly accountable to the people themselves. The Senate would instead be chosen by the state legislatures; the President would be chosen by an electoral college; judges would be appointed by the President. These compromises were each instituted more out of political necessity than sound policy. Over time, they have put the United States out of step with most other modern democracies, where the rule is that the “lower house” of the national legislature is the most representative and the most powerful body in the country, much closer to the plan Madison originally proposed than what the United States ultimately ratified.
Even under the Constitution as ratified, the House had a far more prominent role (compared to the other branches) early in the nation’s history than it does today. Consider that John Quincy Adams served nine terms in the House after his single term as President of the United States. Today, the office of President is so much higher than Representative in terms of responsibilities and prestige that the idea of George W. Bush or Barack Obama serving in the House after their respective presidential terms seems ridiculous.
In part, this project is motivated by a belief in restoring an empowered People’s House. A more effective and representative House of Representatives may not directly address the dysfunctions that exist in the other branches, but over time it may do so indirectly. Changing incentives in a way that fosters greater diversity of viewpoint and coalition-building in the largest branch of government will change incentives elsewhere as well. To provide a few examples:
- The Senate partisan minority may retain veto power via the filibuster, but if legislation becomes more likely to pass this House with a strong bipartisan mandate, the Senate minority may be less cohesively opposed to it.
- The presidency will still have the power to operate by executive order, but it may be less inclined to issue orders that a successor could undo if a more effective House makes negotiating with Congress for legislation a realistic option.
- The judiciary may continue to strike down legislation for reasons out of step with public opinion, but a more effective Congress could legislate in response to such opinions – for example by reinstating the Voting Rights Act, something it has had the legal right to do since the Supreme Court gutted it in 2013.
To be sure, these indirect effects may take time to manifest, and direct reform of these other institutions is warranted as well. However, reforming the House of Representatives first may help, and it may also provide a path to those reforms that is hard to see through the current polarized state of national politics.
How to use this resource
Our Shared Republic is divided into three parts, each of which is divided into chapters. Each chapter begins with a series of bullet points summarizing key takeaways, followed by a short essay and, in most cases, visual aids.
The goal of the project is to assemble the most important arguments for proportional ranked choice voting in a single place. That way, people new to the reform have a clear starting point for learning; those with questions have a place to look for answers; and advocates have a resource to help them be more effective. Our Shared Republic can be read from start to finish, or mined for its most useful parts in any order, and referenced as needed.
The following is a rough roadmap to the project:
Part I is dedicated to the problems caused by winner-take-all elections. This Part shows how winner-take-all has resulted in a lack of meaningful competition in elections (1.1), how it has incentivized an escalation of political polarization (1.2), how it systematically distorts partisan representation (1.3), how it systematically dilutes the votes of racial and ethnic minority groups (1.4), and how it reinforces barriers to entry for women (1.5).
Part II describes the operation of the proposed solution: Proportional ranked choice voting. It begins by explaining the distinction between winner-take-all and proportional representation in general (2.1), then explains how proportional ranked choice voting in particular works and how it could be applied to the House of Representatives (2.2).
Part III lays out the benefits that proportional ranked choice voting would have over winner-take-all. Specifically, the system would make every contest competitive in every state (3.1), it would end gerrymandering and more fully represent the breadth of ideas held by voters (3.2), it would greatly expand opportunities for communities of color to build power and provide new tools to mediate the nation’s deep racial and ethnic divisions (3.3), it would open the door to a more gender-balanced body of Representatives (3.4), and it would create incentives for legislators to work productively in service of the public interest rather than to obstruct and demean their opponents (3.5).
The project also includes resources including sample multi-winner district maps and ballots, example legislation, and data on proportional ranked choice voting in use in the United States.
A note on terminology
Proportional ranked choice voting has gone by other names in other contexts. Internationally and in political science, it is often called the “single-transferable vote” or “STV.” In Australia, where it is used to elect their national Senate and many local offices, they call it “preferential voting.” In Cambridge, Massachusetts, where it is used to elect the city council and school board they just call it “proportional representation.” The term “proportional ranked choice voting” is used here, because in the United States, the term “ranked choice voting” applies to all voting methods that use a ranked ballot and where votes are counted in rounds,[1] and this project is about the form of ranked choice voting that promotes proportional representation.
Further complicating the matter is the fact that the United States does not elect its House of Representatives by only a single method today. Though every state uses single-winner districts to elect House lawmakers, the process by which district representatives win their seats varies from state to state. The most common method is known as single-choice plurality (sometimes called first-past-the-post); in this method, voters vote for only one candidate, and the candidate with the largest vote total wins. Other states use majority rule with contingent runoffs, multiple rounds of voting, single-winner ranked choice voting, or a combination thereof. All methods used are winner-take-all, meaning that one group of voters elects a winner and no other group also elects a winner; as such, this project refers to current methods as winner-take-all.
That said, this collection aims to avoid jargon wherever possible. Excessive reliance on technical terms may be appropriate for trained “in-groups” like academic experts and professional advocates. But they also build and reinforce barriers between in-groups and the rest of the world. This collection seeks to break down barriers to understanding and make these important concepts more accessible.
Nonetheless, because this project is about promoting a four-word, eight-syllable voting method, it must also follow that famous maxim attributed to Albert Einstein: “Everything should be made as simple as possible, and no simpler.” When technical language or terms are needed, they will be defined in text and in an accompanying glossary.
On the title of this project
Each of the three words in the title of this project serves a deliberate purpose. “Our” indicates pluralism; “shared” indicates inclusion; and “republic” evokes the founders’ emphasis on popular sovereignty and representation.
Of these words, “republic” may be the most provocative. Someties, this term has been used as a counterpoint to “democracy,” as a way to argue against pro-democracy reforms, as in the insufferable line, “The United States is a republic, not a democracy!”[2] This is misguided: A republic is not the opposite of a democracy; it is a government in which the people are sovereign, as opposed to a monarchy or aristocracy. In 1787, as Benjamin Franklin was leaving the Constitutional Convention at Independence Hall in Philadelphia, a prominent woman reportedly shouted out: “Doctor, What have we got, a republic, or a monarchy?” To which Franklin famously replied, “A republic, if you can keep it.”
Franklin’s statement did not express opposition to democracy, or even claim that the United States was not a democracy. While it’s true that the Constitution never uses the word “democracy,” several of the framers did refer to the United States Constitution as instituting democracy, including John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, the first Chief Justice of the Supreme Court John Jay, and Chief Justice John Marshall.3 The politically motivated narrative that the founders viewed democracy as unrestrained majority mob rule is simply wrong.
In short, the United States is both a democracy and a republic. Indeed, when Madison drew a distinction between a “pure democracy” and a republic in Federalist 10, he defined a republic by simply saying, “A republic, by which I mean a government in which the scheme of representation takes place[.]” Madison understood a republic to be a government in which the people themselves are sovereign, and in which government is managed by their elected representatives. In other words, he understood a republic to be what we now call a representative democracy.
The adoption of proportional ranked choice voting in the United States House of Representatives will help to realize Madison’s vision for the House of Representatives, as a government able to temper the violence of faction through the representation of a great diversity of interests. So that the republic will not be mine or yours, but ours, and not be ruled, but shared.
Notes
[1] In the United States, the term “ranked choice voting” has been applied to at least four distinct methods: two single-winner (“instant runoff voting” and the “supplementary vote”) and two multi-winner (proportional ranked choice voting and “preferential block voting”). It usually is not used to refer to other methods that use a ranked ballot, like the “Condorcet” methods or the “Borda count” methods.
[2] See Eugene Volokh, Is the United States a Republic or a Democracy, Washington Post, https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2015/05/13/is-the-united-states-of-america-a-republic-or-a-democracy/ for a discussion of this.
Read online:
Introduction to Our Shared Republic