TThe high-stakes US elections are underway this week track to equal the record 66% attendance from four years ago, surpassing the routinely lower midterm election turnout that peaked at 49% in 2018. But as data goes, it looks dismal when you consider that many democracies are getting closer to elections. 80% of their voters to go to the polls.
While between a third and a half of all voters decide to stay home, and most voters express themselves dissatisfaction Given the options presented to them at the ballot box, it’s worth taking a step back to understand How America chooses its leaders. These choices don’t just leave people behind disillusioned with politics they turn people away from our democracy yourself And opening a door to increasingly extreme candidates.
The American electoral system remains one outlier among democracies. Rather than electing a single representative from a district, most democracies elect multiple representatives from each district, in proportion to the share of votes each party receives. For example, if a party receives 40% of the votes in a five-member district, it will receive two of the five seats. This kind of system is called proportional representation. Most democracies embraced proportionality decades ago – and for good reason.
That’s because there are more elections competitivemore voters come because they think their vote really matters. So it’s no surprise that turnout in the US is so terrible. Each cycle, that’s at least four of the five congressional districts safe for their incumbents. Nationally, seven of 10 general election races were undisputedincluding nearly half of the state’s legislative races and five percent of congressional races where only one candidate was on the ballot. This lack of competition is one consequence of our choice to elect representatives from single-member districts.
And the culprit for this is not gerrymandering. Even states that have created independent redistricting commissions to prevent partisan gerrymandering still largely are non-competitive. As Americans continue to do kind are geographically in the Red or Blue areas, more and more natural clusters are emerging that are dominated by one party. In some cases, the geography of where and how people live makes it impossible to designate single-member districts that give partisan or racial minorities a fair shot at representation.
Look at Massachusetts and Oklahoma. A third of Oklahoma voters are Democrats, but all five congressional seats went to Republicans. And a third of Massachusetts voters are Republicans, but all nine of that state’s congressional seats went to Democrats. And it’s not because Massachusetts has attracted districts that disadvantage Republicans – it’s because you can’t drawing a single-member district in the state that would elect a Republican. In fact, researchers found that “although there are more ways to draw up a valid district plan than there are particles in the galaxy, each of them would produce a 9–0 Democratic delegation.” In other words, drawing single-member districts differently is not enough; we need to completely rethink the map.
There are sensible reforms that can help resolve the situation. Moving away from single-member districts and toward proportional representation would force Democrats and Republicans to compete in more districts, encourage other candidates to run, and increase turnout because voters have actual choices. It is functional impossible Unpleasant gerrymander districts under proportional representation.
The good news is that federal and about many statesthese reforms can be implemented through simple legislative changes. And at the state level the ballot initiative process allows voters to amend the Constitution through the ballot box.
Proportional representation has been tried before. Illinois used a partially proportional system for more than one year century after the Civil War. Representatives to the State House were elected from three affiliated districts, approximately in proportion to votes cast. If a candidate could get more than a quarter of the votes, he could generally win one of the seats in a district. The results in Illinois reflected the experience of other democracies with proportional systems: there are generally more elections competitiveand minorities can too Certainly representation that better reflects their numbers. Unfortunately, Illinois repealed its proportional voting system in 1980, and the share of state House races that remained uncontested rose from 4% then to 44% this year.
Many Americans are angry with the electoral system. They do not trust our democratic institutions. They are tired of the choices or lack of choices it offers. But it doesn’t have to be this way. The question is: are people angry enough to enact reforms – like proportional representation – that could make some big changes to ultimately solve the problem?
Our democracy may become dependent on the answer.
Leave a Reply