Written by Abhijay Bhosale
Edited by Mehreen Ali
The Basis: What is Proportional Representation?
“There is nothing which I dread so much as a division of the republic into two great parties, each arranged under its leader and concerting measures in opposition. This, in my humble apprehension, is to be dreaded as the greatest political evil under our Constitution.”
These were the words of John Adams, one of America’s Founding Fathers and the nation’s second president—.Adams expressed his fear of a future where the United States would be split into two major political parties that would divide the people and suppress opposition from other parties trying to enter the world of politics. Right now, this division is more rampant than ever before. Many voters are being forced to choose between two ignorant parties instead of voting for those that attend to the needs of the people. This is all because of America’s majoritarian representation, also known as the “winner takes all” system: the faction with the biggest percentage of votes wins all the seats, and everyone who did not vote for them or does not believe in that faction’s ideals just needs to live with it. This can scale up to institutions like Congress, where the chambers meant to represent all the people can become saturated with the thoughts of the ruling class. Congress needs to make one simple change so that all the thoughts of the people are heard: switch to proportional representation.
Proportional representation is a system where, unlike majoritarian representation, the votes that are cast lead to a proportional makeup of councils or institutions such as Congress. It is an objectively better way to run a democracy, especially one founded by and for the people. Although the current majoritarian system in the nation may allow for faster decision-making, it is undeniable that proportional representation in the United States is a superior alternative because it eliminates the two-party dominance present in the government, allows for more perspectives behind federal decisions, and facilitates a better connection between the government and people.
The Order - Two Party Dominance and its Consequences
The first way in which proportional representation benefits the people is by eliminating the two-party dominance present in the government and allowing for more perspectives behind federal decisions. Democrats and Republicans run the political landscape uncontested. Admittedly, there are a few other political parties that are present on paper, but the ballots are always dominated by these two parties. Referring to Figure 1, in every presidential race since America was founded, with the exception of 1912 when Theodore Roosevelt ran in his own third party (and still lost), only 3 colors are present. One left-leaning party (Democratic Republican→Democrat), one right-leaning party (Federalist→National Republican→Whig→Republican), and a sliver of a third party.
Figure 1, a chart showing party votes in the United States over time (ChrisnHouston 1)
Ever since the presidency of Washington, America has consistently had the same battle between 2 giants for centuries. Over time, these parties have slowly been alienating smaller groups of voters and ignored many cries of attention from the public. In Do “Winner-Take-All” Elections Serve Democracy?, Ned Temko, frequent BBC News panelist and Monitor columnist, has a lot to say about this. He says, “The two main parties in [America] have too much self-interest in retaining a system hardwired to maintain their power and limit third-party challengers. Yet reform advocates point to the steep potential costs of inaction: an increasingly angry partisan divide that has left growing numbers of people feeling politically disconnected, disillusioned, and unrepresented” (Temko 3). In his research and experience as a journalist, Temko concludes that the competition between two major parties has left groups of people unrepresented and unheard. Parties are focusing less on bringing forward policies that serve the public, and more on being slightly more appealing to interest groups (groups of voters that have shared interests and usually vote as a block) that sway the votes more. These kinds of decisions are based on the fact that the United States runs off of a majoritarian system of representation. This is an example of the concept of majoritarianism in the Electoral College.
The Electoral College was created as a middle ground between proportionalism and majoritarianism. Instead of Congress or the people voting for the president, a separate entity not tied to the government would do it. The point was to avoid majoritarianism, but ambiguous writing and interpretation led to it becoming the very thing it swore to replace. 32 of America’s states have not passed legislation, like the NPVIC (National Popular Vote Interstate Compact), that would allow for proportional representation, meaning that the majority of electoral votes are based on who gets the majority. This severely underrepresents millions of people, and when paired with unfair practices such as gerrymandering (making voting district borders so that one party wins the majority by varying margins), a comparatively small, elite group of people are left with votes that actually contribute to the inauguration of President.
Referring to the same article by Temko, “In the U.S., the potential implications are obvious: A third party such as the recently announced Forward Party, seeking to attract moderate Democrats and Republicans, seems to have little chance of winning congressional races against the two main parties. But if the system enabled the party to win seats in line with the actual number of votes it won nationwide, it might look like a much more attractive proposition” (Temko 19). Temko makes an argument that follows a very sound line of reasoning: if a country were to adopt voting based on popular vote, other parties would be more connected, less radical, and more popular, having a chance at overtaking the Democratic and Republican parties as it would be easier for them to garner public support and take office. Allowing a chance for proportional representation sets the stage for an America where federal decisions are made by those who are most affected by them, not a group of people whose upbringing and lifestyle distances them from the problems of the real American public.
The Relationship - The People and the Government
On the topic of the real American public, there is another reason why proportional representation is a better alternative when compared to majoritarian representation: It allows for a better connection between the government and the people. The idea of more perspectives is different from a better connection between the government and the people. More perspectives do not equate to better representation or connection, that is a topic of its own.
The first way this better connection occurs is due to the fact it is easier to suppress the popular vote. There have been accusations by various organizations saying that the United States is turning to an authoritarian rule, one where the people’s opinions are held to a lower standard than they have been held to previously. How to Save America from Complete Ruin by Changing the Way We Vote by David Montgomery, a professor at the University of Maryland, provides some solid facts about this. Montgomery says, “What's not in doubt, democracy theorists argue, is that certain features of our current system exacerbate our stalemated dysfunction and may even enable a drift toward authoritarianism. It is no coincidence, they say, that Hungary's populist strongman, Viktor Orban, and his political party centralized their grip and undermined that country's democracy in part by instituting some American features, including greater reliance on gerrymandered single-member districts” (Montgomery 4). Although his piece uses convoluted language, it is apparent what he means: some features of our current democratic system, particularly parts such as gerrymandering, have led to the undermining of people and allowing the passing of policies that didn’t take the views of the nation’s citizens into account in the past.
How does this connect to the negative effects of majoritarianism? Although legislation that harms the people and allows for full control by the government is not seen or fully possible in the United States due to the Constitution, legislation that harms the middle and lower classes has been enforced over and over again through laws that enable tax cuts for the top 10% and projects such as the Willow Project, which puts the lives of the normal people at stake in exchange for more economic growth of the elite population, the same elite population whose votes ultimately sway the appointments of executives, policymakers, and representatives.
The aforementioned practice of gerrymandering is another way this disconnect between the people and government is formed. Going back to Montgomery’s quote, he describes how gerrymandering is the base of manipulating the majoritarian system of representation. By dividing people, not just socially or politically, but also cartographically, the government can better distance itself from the needs of the people and instead focus on meeting the needs of those who elected them into office: the elites. This, again, demonstrates flaws in majoritarianism and how disparities between political power levels allow for the development of unfair ideas and agendas.
This idea of classes contributed significantly to the development of proportional representation in the European Union. The European Union, an equally developed counterpart to the United States, incorporates more inclusive and open ideas of elections and governance. According to Why Did Western Europe Adopt Proportional Representation? A Political Geography Explanation by Jonathan Rodden, a political scientist who is currently a professor of political science at Stanford University, “Majoritarian electoral institutions have been kind to the parties of the right, as well as the class interests of property owners and capitalists. Yet this insight does not require the benefit of 100 years of hindsight. Proportional representation was part of the platform of most socialist or workers’ parties in Europe in the decades before World War I. Once the European socialists decided to participate in elections and abide by the rules of the democratic game, by far the most important goal was the achievement of the full and equal franchise and the abolition of undemocratic upper chambers, but after some debate, many socialist theorists agreed that proportional representation was the best electoral scheme for the representation of workers’ interests” (Rodden 3).
As a disclaimer, the purpose of this essay is not to promote a communist or even socialist economy in America, it is to promote the well-being of the general citizen by putting less emphasis on the upper classes and representing the average person on a governmental scale better. The reason socialism is brought up is because of the emphasis on promoting the welfare of working-class citizens. Europe is still capitalist, it simply has a government that isn’t swayed by the economic system and actually does the job of a government: representing all people fairly. They do this by employing a proportional system of representation. Each individual matters more in a proportional system of representation because each vote contributes to a percentage of how seats are split in governments. By connecting more with the needs of the whole range of collar workers, it allows for more cohesion among the people.
In Europe, each party serves to more subtly change policy, guiding the future of their country or their continent (if they’re a part of the EU) to something that aligns with their party’s interests without isolating other groups of people. Different interest groups carry more weight. Be it because of compassion for other groups of people or pragmatism of needing as many votes as possible, the result of better representation and connection between people and government is apparent regardless of why parties are more open to change and influence from the general public.
The Refutation - Why Proportional Representation Works
Despite clear evidence showing how a proportional system of representation is objectively better than a majoritarian one, there are still many arguments used by those who want to uphold the current method of representation. One popular argument used is this: majoritarian representation lowers conflict in decisions and time spent on decisions. Essentially, majoritarianism is more efficient. This argument is true to an extent.
It is a well-known fact that decisions in European nations, coalitions, and partnerships take much longer to pass legislation when compared to America. There is a lot of negotiation that needs to be done behind the scenes to present something to the entire governmental institution, and then it takes just as long if not longer to approve, ratify, and execute the policy or plan. A lot more groups representing different interest groups need to agree on something before it can be decided that the plan is possible. However, the same can be said for the United States.
There is a fundamental concept behind politics that, although has been described over and over, has not been explicitly mentioned in this essay once: Duverger’s Law. This concept is the name for the phenomenon that leads to majoritarianism ending up with 2 dominant parties. To further explain how this affects the efficiency of politics, the article Could a Third-Party Candidate Win the U.S. Presidency? That’s Very Unlikely by Amanda Skuld, a former Senior Protective Intelligence Analyst with a PhD in Government, International Relations, and Comparative Politics, says “Duverger's Law says that the way a country's electoral system is structured usually determines how many competitive parties that country will have. Here's how it works.
First, when each district gets only one legislative seat (known as a single-member district, which we have in the United States) and, second, when the election's winner takes that seat, then the system tends to have two dominant parties. In such a system, all a party needs to win is more votes than the other side. That winner-takes-all nature of single-member districts encourages broad coalitions to form before elections. The odds of a party winning such elections are much higher if only two parties exist, enabling each side to work to bring as many people to its side as possible” (Skuldt 6). This, at face value, seems positive. In order to win an election, a given dominant party must make large groups.
However, this shows two things. For one, it invalidates the idea that majoritarianism leads to more efficiency. Everything that would happen in a proportional system of representation, like the one described in the overhead European example, would still happen in the United States since broad groups lead to more conflict and time spent on approving and drafting legislation.
One might be confused reading that. They might wonder, “Is this not false? America passes legislation and presents bills a lot more frequently than other nations with proportional systems of representation.” And they would be right, except, this legislation serves, again, the elite. The policies that would help out the general public take around the same amount of time regardless of the system of representation, but since every party in American political party groups are predisposed to be biased to more elitist groups (since their deciding votes matter more than general, volumetric votes), the things that are passed in government are made to represent those groups, the groups that don’t exactly need help when compared to other groups of people such as veterans or low-income households. The things that are passed are tax cuts, corporate stimulation, and things geared towards “economic growth,” which, although occasionally creating jobs, usually end with business expansion for companies that are politically and economically connected.
Majoritarianism is just as tedious and bureaucratic as proportionalism when it comes to things that promote welfare and general advancement. For an average citizen, a majoritarian system of representation leads to parties focusing on issues that are irrelevant to them, while at least the productive struggle that happens in a proportional system of representation is set to fulfill the needs of the majority of the population, not the majority of the votes. When compared to the rest of the world, these problems become apparent, even if they are slightly different than America. In India, the government uses a less radical approach to majoritarianism. They also have two dominant parties (after all, it’s an effect of Duverger’s Law), but they have less of a grasp on the country, unlike America, due to coalition politics where parties that succeed on a local level can also be heard on a national level. Canada, which also uses a majoritarian system, has well-established parties, all of which are constantly in competition with one another, representing the people better.
The UK, a country not a part of the EU, uses a similar system of representation to America, albeit on a much smaller scale due to the size of its population. However, despite these differences, the fundamentals of majoritarianism lead to copious amounts of corruption in India, political complacency in Canada, and an unstable political climate in the UK (again, even with the smaller British population). There’s also major corruption in the United States. As a final nail in the coffin to keep the opposition who may say that majoritarianism is worth the trade-offs silent, elaboration on gerrymandering is needed.
Gerrymandering is a toxin that runs through the veins of these United States, poisoning any semblance of just representation through a majoritarian system. According to Majoritarian versus Proportional Representation Voting by renowned economist Ethan Kaplan, “In a majoritarian political system, districts need to be drawn and redrawn and it is very easy to draw districts to benefit one political party over another. Unfortunately, in the United States, district maps are largely drawn by politicians. In most states, redistricting bills must be passed by state legislatures and signed by the Governor. All state legislature except for Nebraska have two chambers (an Assembly or House and a Senate). If a party has control over both chambers and the governorship, it can potentially redistrict without any input from the other political party. Coriale et al. (2020) show that in the past two decades, the average seat share gain in the House of Representatives from legal control by the Republican party over redistricting is an average of 8 percentage points over the subsequent three elections” (Kaplan 7). When a dominant party takes over the chambers and governance of a state, it’s easier to do it to the next one, and the next one, and the next one. The infamous 2012 to 2014 gerrymander of North Carolina had drawn districts in such a way by the at the time Republican government that, even though North Carolina had the composition of a swing state and had an almost equal volume of Democrats and Republicans, Republicans won three times as many districts as Democrats. There is a battle of two giants happening on American soil, and the victims are the people. The answer is as clear as day: Majoritarianism does not work. Altering it does not work either, as seen by the other country’s examples. Proportional representation is the first step to healing the country back to its founding intent of a land by the people, for the people.
The Reform - How We Can Change
One can make the choice of what system of representation is better for the nation as a whole, and by now it should be obvious. The current political state of the United States is a byproduct of the use of a majoritarian system of representation instead of a proportional system of representation. It has none of the hallmarks of a true democracy like a range of governing choices for the people or connection between the government and people. Its perceived benefits are minimal, if present at all, in most cases. This system has led to people losing faith in the government and the government ignoring large masses of people who have varying opinions across the spectrum. That is why it is up to the people to make the future better. The future of the nation is not bleak, there is still enough time for reform. Do not hate politicians, they are simply players adapting to the game.
Representatives have had to conform to the status quo to advance their careers and attempt to do what is best for their constituents. Do not hate America, it is a country founded on noble ideals that has simply been corrupted by the nasty and brutish nature of humans. Do not hate others for profiting off of the system, they too have the same drive for survival that unites every consciousness on Earth. Work together. Division is what brought America to the point it is today. Fundamental changes in politics can only come to fruition with fundamental changes in social perspectives and adapting values between communities. Reconciliation is the first step to changing the American system of representation from one that focuses on the elite to one that focuses on the people as a whole.
Works Cited
ChrisnHouston. “File:PartyVotes-Presidents.png” Wikimedia Commons, January 2021, https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:PartyVotes-Presidents.png. Accessed 25 Sept. 2024
Kaplan, Ethan. “Majoritarian versus Proportional Representation Voting.” Economics for Inclusive Prosperity, June 2021, econfip.org/policy-briefs/majoritarian-versus-proportional-representation-voting/. Accessed 16 Sept. 2024.
Montgomery, David. “How to Save America from Complete Ruin by Changing the Way We Vote.” Proquest.com, 6 Sept. 2022, explore.proquest.com/sirsissuesresearcher/document/2768819597?searchid=1726154584&accountid=13217. Accessed 16 Sept. 2024.
Rodden, Jonathan. “Why Did Western Europe Adopt Proportional Representation? A Political Geography Explanation.” Stanford University, 30 Dec. 2009. Accessed 16 Sept. 2024.
Skuldt, Amanda. “ Could a Third-Party Candidate Win the U.S. Presidency? That’s Very Unlikely.” Proquest.com, 2 Aug. 2016, Accexplore.proquest.com/sirsissuesresearcher/document/2265914696?searchid=1726157658&accountid=13217. Accessed 17 Sept. 2024.
Temko, Ned. “Do “Winner-Take-All” Elections Serve Democracy?” Proquest.com, 8 Sept. 2022, explore.proquest.com/sirsissuesresearcher/document/2727051659?searchid=1726154584&accountid=13217. Accessed 16 Sept. 2024.
Comentários