jacobin1949
12th November 2007, 19:49
Proportional Representation
This post is specific to the United States though it might apply to some aspects of the UK. It seems to me that most Leftist parties in the USA put the cart before the horse. I would suggest that the highest priority of any radical organization in the United States should be the establishment of a proportional representational system. Communists have a respectable holding in relatively conservative western parliaments including France, England, Germany, Ireland and Japan.
I think Japan is especially telling in that they basically have two conservative ruling parties dominating and are in many ways to the right of the USA. And yet thanks to their system they JCP is the 3rd largest party!
The proportional rep issue is one that could unite leftist moderate and even conservative parties. It would be in the best interest of any socialist, libertarian or Green parties.
Anyway after a quick search I found the biggest group in the USA supporting this system and I though t you might be interested. Unless you think armed guerrillas
are gonna seize power any time soon,. this is the natural first step toward any revolution.
http://ed.labonte.com/pr.html
Proportional Representation
Frequently Asked Questions
by Ed LaBonte Jr.
Is the United States a democracy?
Well, yes and no. It uses a particular democratic system to elect the president and congressional members. But how democratic is that system in reality? One way of measuring the health of a democracy is to look at the percentage of registered voters who actually vote. Typically in elections in the United States voter turnout is less than 50%. One can compare this to elections in Germany, Austria, Finland or Sweden where the turnout is in the 75% to 90% range. Why the great discrepancy? There are a large number of factors which can influence voter turnout. One of the most important is the degree to which an individual vote will influence an election. Suppose you are a Democratic voter in a preponderantly Republican district. The polls all predict that the Republican candidate will win with a huge majority. Of what value is your vote except as a symbolic token. None. So why is there such a greater turnout in countries like Finland, Germany and Austria? In those countries a form of proportional representation is used.
What exactly is proportional representation?
It is a voting system that assures that the overall results are pr
oportional to the distribution of votes. If a party receives 30% of the vote it will get approximately 30% representation. In that type of system your vote is always important. The difference between 20% and 30% doesn’t mean anything in a majority winner-take-all election, but it means the difference between 20% and 30% representation in a system that uses proportional representation.
But isn’t it necessary to have some form of parliamentary system in order to institute proportional representation?
No. The parliamentary system is a form of government, proportional representation is a voting system. Most countries that have proportional representation also have some form of parliamentary system, but it is not necessary. England and Canada have parliamentary systems but they do not have proportional representation.
So how does proportional representation work?
There are many systems that can be used. All require multi-seat districts - more than one representative per district. Here are a few examples.
Party List System - This is by far the most popular form of proportional representation but unfortunately it is probably the least likely to be accepted in the United States. All parties provide lists of candidates which are displayed on the ballot. The voter votes for a party rather than an individual candidate. Some party list systems allow the voter to also give his preferences as to individual candidates, but those candidates must be in the same party that he is voting for. The seats up for grabs are then allotted to the different parties according to the percentage of the vote they received. It is a very straight forward system and ensures proportional representation but it is not very likely that Americans will like the idea of voting for a party rather than an individual candidate.
Mixed Member Systems - This system is used in Germany and Italy. First representatives are elected in single member majority elections. The rest of the seats are then given to at-large members in a proportion which offsets the nonproportionality of the single member elections. The following demonstrates how this system might be used for the U.S. Senate. Each state would elect a single Senator. The other 50 seats would be filled according to the percentage of the vote that each party received. For example: suppose in a Senate election the Democrats won 24 seats while the Republicans won 26 seats (this is supposing that the Senate elections were all held in the same year for the sake of simplicity). The other 50 seats would depend on the percentage of votes each party received. Suppose the Democrats received 44%, the Republicans 46% and the Green Party received 10%. Twenty of the at-large seats would go to the Democrats, which would bring their total up to 44 seats, accurately reflecting their vote proportion. The Republicans would also get 20 seats which would bring their total up to 46, again reflecting their vote proportion. And the Greens would get 10 at-large seats. In the single member elections it is doubtful that the Greens would win any seats and all the Green voters in the country would be unrepresented. The strength of this system is that it is 100% proportional but combines that with regional representation so each state would have an elected member that it could call on to represent the regional concerns of that state. Unfortunately a constitutional amendment would be necessary to apply this system to the U.S. Senate.
Preference Voting (also known as Single Transferable Vote) - This is a system that is presently in use in Australia and Ireland. Its unique value is that it provides a means of ensuring proportional representation while still allowing people to vote for individual candidates. It could be used for the American House of Representatives without requiring a constitutional amendment. It would require that congressional districts be enlarged so that more than one member would represent each district. The voter lists his preferences by placing a number beside the name of each candidate. "1" represents his first preference, "2" his second, etc. All first preferences are tallied. Anyone reaching the "quota" is elected to a seat. The quota is determined by the number of seats open and the number of ballots cast. Depending on the system used, in a three member district the quota would be between 25% and 33% of the total vote. If no one reaches a quota on the first count the candidate receiving the fewest first preference votes is eliminated. His ballots are then allotted to their second preferences. Anyone reaching the quota is then elected. If the seats have not all been filled then the last place candidate is eliminated and his ballots are assigned to the next preference. The process continues until all seats have been filled. This system is presently being used in Cambridge MA to elect the city council and school committee.
Cumulative Voting - In this voting system everyone is allowed the same number of votes as there are seats to be filled. Three votes in three member districts, five in five member districts, etc. The voter may distribute his votes in any way he sees fit. He may cast fractional votes or he may cast all his votes for a single candidate. In this way minorities can bunch their votes together behind one or two candidates while majorities are forced to spread their votes thin over many candidates. The top vote getters are elected to the available seats This system has been used in Voting Rights Act cases instead of redistricting to ensure minority representation at the municipal level.
Limited Voting - In this system voters are allowed no more than half the votes as there are seats to be filled. In five member districts voters would get two votes, in seven member districts no more than three. Minorities would then bunch their votes behind a limited number of candidates and thus ensure their election while majorities would be forced to spread their votes thin to ensure majority representation. The top vote getters are elected. This system has also been used in Voting Rights cases to ensure minority representation. A version of it is used in Japan.
Majority Preference Voting - Strictly speaking this is not a form of proportional representation as it is specifically designed for single seat winner-take-all elections (like, say President of the United States). It has distinct advantages over our present system. It is similar to Preference Voting described above. I will explain it by describing how it might be used in an election for the U.S. Presidency. Under our present system third party candidates are at a distinct disadvantage. Not only do they not have the resources that the major parties can provide their candidates but the voters tend to view a vote for a third party candidate as a wasted vote (justifiably). This second disadvantage can be overcome by using Majority Preference Voting (MPV). Under MPV each voter would list his preferences. Suppose in the an election the candidates are Gore, Bush, Buchanan, and Nader (Green Party). Suppose you are disgusted with the two party system and want to express that in your vote, but you are afraid that a vote for Nader might help Bush win (or if you are a conservative a vote for Buchanan might help Gore win). Under MPV you could arrange your ballot as follows: 1. Nader, 2. Buchanan, 3. Gore, 4. Bush. If after all the first preferences are tallied no one candidate has a majority then the candidate with the least votes is eliminated. Say in this example that is Nader. Your vote would then be assigned to Buchanan. All the other Nader votes would be assigned to their second preferences. If, after this there is still no candidate with a majority the last place is again eliminated (say Buchanan) and your vote would then go to Gore. Under this system votes are never wasted. There is no need to put a lesser evil as your first choice. But still it ensures that your worst evil will never benefit from your vote. Third party candidates are much more likely to win in these kinds of elections because they are not marginalized by people’s fear of wasting their vote. As a result they would be taken much more seriously by the media and their overall chances would be greatly improved. They would be more likely to be included in debates and issues which the two major parties might want to avoid would have a greater likelyhood of being discussed.
Where is proportional representation currently in use?
Countries using proportional representation:
(Party List) ALGERIA, ANGOLA, ARGENTINA, AUSTRIA, BELGIUM, BENIN, BOSNIA AND HERZEGOVINA, BRAZIL, BULGARIA, BURKINA FASO, BURUNDI, CAMBODIA, CAPE VERDE, CHILE, COLOMBIA, COSTA RICA, CYPRUS, CZECH REPUBLIC, DENMARK, DOMINICAN REPUBLIC, EL SALVADOR, EQUATORIAL GUINEA, ERITREA, ESTONIA, FINLAND, GREECE, GUINEA-BISSAU, GUYANA, ICELAND, INDONESIA, ISRAEL, LATVIA, LIBERIA, LIECHTENSTEIN, LUXEMBOURG, MOLDOVA, REPUBLIC OF MOZAMBIQUE, NAMIBIA, NETHERLANDS, NETHERLANDS ANTILLES, NEW CALEDONIA, NICARAGUA, NORWAY, PARAGUAY, PERU, POLAND, PORTUGAL, ROMANIA, SAN MARINO, SAO TOME AND PRINCIPE, SLOVAKIA, SLOVENIA, SOUTH AFRICA, SPAIN, SRI LANKA, SURINAME, SWEDEN, SWITZERLAND, THE STATE UNION OF SERBIA AND MONTENEGRO, TURKEY, URUGUAY, WALLIS AND FUTUNA
(Mixed Member Proportional) BOLIVIA, GERMANY, HUNGARY, ITALY, LESOTHO, MEXICO, NEW ZEALAND, VENEZUELA
(Preference Voting) IRELAND, MALTA, AUSTRALIA
Countries not using proportional representation:
(First pass the post) AFGHANISTAN, AMERICAN SAMOA, ANTIGUA AND BARBUDA, ARUBA, BAHAMAS, BANGLADESH, BARBADOS, BELIZE, BHUTAN, BOTSWANA, CANADA, CAYMAN ISLANDS, CONGO, DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC OF, COOK ISLANDS, DOMINICA, ETHIOPIA, GAMBIA, GHANA, GRENADA, GUAM, INDIA, JAMAICA, KENYA, KOREA, DEMOCRATIC PEOPLE'S REPUBLIC OF, MALAWI, MALAYSIA, MARSHALL ISLANDS, MONGOLIA, MONTSERRAT, MOROCCO, MYANMAR, NEPAL, NIGERIA, NORTHERN MARIANA ISLANDS, PAKISTAN, PALAU, PAPUA NEW GUINEA, RWANDA, SAINT KITTS AND NEVIS, SAINT LUCIA, SAINT VINCENT AND THE GRENADINES, SIERRA LEONE, SOLOMON ISLANDS, SUDAN, SWAZILAND, SYRIAN ARAB REPUBLIC, TANZANIA, UNITED REPUBLIC OF, TONGA, TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO, TURKS AND CAICOS ISLANDS, TUVALU, UGANDA, UNITED KINGDOM, UNITED STATES, YEMEN, ZAMBIA, ZIMBABWE
(Two round systems) BELARUS, CENTRAL AFRICAN REPUBLIC, CONGO, CUBA, EGYPT, FRANCE, FRENCH GUIANA, GABON, GUADELOUPE, HAITI, IRAN, ISLAMIC REPUBLIC OF, IRAQ, KAZAKSTAN, KIRIBATI, KYRGYZSTAN, MALI, MAURITANIA, MONACO, REUNION, TAJIKISTAN, TOGO, TURKMENISTAN, UZBEKISTAN, VIETNAM
The above information was gleaned from the International Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance web site (http://www.idea.int/index.htm).
What are the advantages of using proportional representation?
The advantages are many.
* There is much greater voter participation. In countries using PR, voter turnout is usually in the 70% to 95% range.
* Campaigns tend to be issue oriented rather than popularity contests. Because American society is so diverse, it is difficult to find issues that will guarantee majority support. Instead, campaign managers fight to attract swing voters who are not attracted to either candidate. They have discovered the most effective way to do this is by smearing the opponent. Swing voters are more influenced by negative campaigns because they are unattracted to the positive positions of either candidate. Under PR, however, a majority is not required to get elected. Instead politicians run campaigns directed at a particular constituency and the most effective campaigns are issue oriented.
* Minorities and woman get much greater representation under proportional representation. Women in countries using PR generally comprise somewhere in the range of 25% - 35% of elected officials, as opposed to less than 5% here in the U.S. PR has been used in Voting Rights Act cases where it has been shown that gerymandered districts or the use of at-large representation has denied minorities fair representation. PR has proven to be an effective way of ensuring minority representation in Alamagordo, NM and Peoria, IL. Blacks have been continuously represented on the city council and school committee of Cambridge, MA since it instituted its version of PR in 1941.
* There is a much greater selection under proportional representation. Americans come in more than two flavors. There is no way that two political parties can represent the diversity of opinion that exists in this country. Under PR the size of the vote determines the size of the representation, but everyone gets represented.
Okay, granting that proportional representation is a good idea, what are the chances of it being instituted in the United States?
Better than they might appear. PR represents a direct threat to the hegemony of the two major parties so there is little chance that they will institute it on their own. But recently there has been a groundswell of dissatisfaction with the two party system in this country. Third party and independent candidacies have proliferated and calls for term limits and campaign reform are being put forward as never before. If average Americans were only familiar with the idea of proportional representation it could become the flag uniting people who feel they are not represented by their democratic system. And the dissatisfaction spans the political spectrum. But PR’s greatest weakness is that most Americans have never heard of it.
The organized movement for proportional representation in this country is just getting off the ground. The national organization is:
The Center for Voting and Democracy
6905 Fifth Street NW, Suite 200
Washington, DC 20012
This post is specific to the United States though it might apply to some aspects of the UK. It seems to me that most Leftist parties in the USA put the cart before the horse. I would suggest that the highest priority of any radical organization in the United States should be the establishment of a proportional representational system. Communists have a respectable holding in relatively conservative western parliaments including France, England, Germany, Ireland and Japan.
I think Japan is especially telling in that they basically have two conservative ruling parties dominating and are in many ways to the right of the USA. And yet thanks to their system they JCP is the 3rd largest party!
The proportional rep issue is one that could unite leftist moderate and even conservative parties. It would be in the best interest of any socialist, libertarian or Green parties.
Anyway after a quick search I found the biggest group in the USA supporting this system and I though t you might be interested. Unless you think armed guerrillas
are gonna seize power any time soon,. this is the natural first step toward any revolution.
http://ed.labonte.com/pr.html
Proportional Representation
Frequently Asked Questions
by Ed LaBonte Jr.
Is the United States a democracy?
Well, yes and no. It uses a particular democratic system to elect the president and congressional members. But how democratic is that system in reality? One way of measuring the health of a democracy is to look at the percentage of registered voters who actually vote. Typically in elections in the United States voter turnout is less than 50%. One can compare this to elections in Germany, Austria, Finland or Sweden where the turnout is in the 75% to 90% range. Why the great discrepancy? There are a large number of factors which can influence voter turnout. One of the most important is the degree to which an individual vote will influence an election. Suppose you are a Democratic voter in a preponderantly Republican district. The polls all predict that the Republican candidate will win with a huge majority. Of what value is your vote except as a symbolic token. None. So why is there such a greater turnout in countries like Finland, Germany and Austria? In those countries a form of proportional representation is used.
What exactly is proportional representation?
It is a voting system that assures that the overall results are pr
oportional to the distribution of votes. If a party receives 30% of the vote it will get approximately 30% representation. In that type of system your vote is always important. The difference between 20% and 30% doesn’t mean anything in a majority winner-take-all election, but it means the difference between 20% and 30% representation in a system that uses proportional representation.
But isn’t it necessary to have some form of parliamentary system in order to institute proportional representation?
No. The parliamentary system is a form of government, proportional representation is a voting system. Most countries that have proportional representation also have some form of parliamentary system, but it is not necessary. England and Canada have parliamentary systems but they do not have proportional representation.
So how does proportional representation work?
There are many systems that can be used. All require multi-seat districts - more than one representative per district. Here are a few examples.
Party List System - This is by far the most popular form of proportional representation but unfortunately it is probably the least likely to be accepted in the United States. All parties provide lists of candidates which are displayed on the ballot. The voter votes for a party rather than an individual candidate. Some party list systems allow the voter to also give his preferences as to individual candidates, but those candidates must be in the same party that he is voting for. The seats up for grabs are then allotted to the different parties according to the percentage of the vote they received. It is a very straight forward system and ensures proportional representation but it is not very likely that Americans will like the idea of voting for a party rather than an individual candidate.
Mixed Member Systems - This system is used in Germany and Italy. First representatives are elected in single member majority elections. The rest of the seats are then given to at-large members in a proportion which offsets the nonproportionality of the single member elections. The following demonstrates how this system might be used for the U.S. Senate. Each state would elect a single Senator. The other 50 seats would be filled according to the percentage of the vote that each party received. For example: suppose in a Senate election the Democrats won 24 seats while the Republicans won 26 seats (this is supposing that the Senate elections were all held in the same year for the sake of simplicity). The other 50 seats would depend on the percentage of votes each party received. Suppose the Democrats received 44%, the Republicans 46% and the Green Party received 10%. Twenty of the at-large seats would go to the Democrats, which would bring their total up to 44 seats, accurately reflecting their vote proportion. The Republicans would also get 20 seats which would bring their total up to 46, again reflecting their vote proportion. And the Greens would get 10 at-large seats. In the single member elections it is doubtful that the Greens would win any seats and all the Green voters in the country would be unrepresented. The strength of this system is that it is 100% proportional but combines that with regional representation so each state would have an elected member that it could call on to represent the regional concerns of that state. Unfortunately a constitutional amendment would be necessary to apply this system to the U.S. Senate.
Preference Voting (also known as Single Transferable Vote) - This is a system that is presently in use in Australia and Ireland. Its unique value is that it provides a means of ensuring proportional representation while still allowing people to vote for individual candidates. It could be used for the American House of Representatives without requiring a constitutional amendment. It would require that congressional districts be enlarged so that more than one member would represent each district. The voter lists his preferences by placing a number beside the name of each candidate. "1" represents his first preference, "2" his second, etc. All first preferences are tallied. Anyone reaching the "quota" is elected to a seat. The quota is determined by the number of seats open and the number of ballots cast. Depending on the system used, in a three member district the quota would be between 25% and 33% of the total vote. If no one reaches a quota on the first count the candidate receiving the fewest first preference votes is eliminated. His ballots are then allotted to their second preferences. Anyone reaching the quota is then elected. If the seats have not all been filled then the last place candidate is eliminated and his ballots are assigned to the next preference. The process continues until all seats have been filled. This system is presently being used in Cambridge MA to elect the city council and school committee.
Cumulative Voting - In this voting system everyone is allowed the same number of votes as there are seats to be filled. Three votes in three member districts, five in five member districts, etc. The voter may distribute his votes in any way he sees fit. He may cast fractional votes or he may cast all his votes for a single candidate. In this way minorities can bunch their votes together behind one or two candidates while majorities are forced to spread their votes thin over many candidates. The top vote getters are elected to the available seats This system has been used in Voting Rights Act cases instead of redistricting to ensure minority representation at the municipal level.
Limited Voting - In this system voters are allowed no more than half the votes as there are seats to be filled. In five member districts voters would get two votes, in seven member districts no more than three. Minorities would then bunch their votes behind a limited number of candidates and thus ensure their election while majorities would be forced to spread their votes thin to ensure majority representation. The top vote getters are elected. This system has also been used in Voting Rights cases to ensure minority representation. A version of it is used in Japan.
Majority Preference Voting - Strictly speaking this is not a form of proportional representation as it is specifically designed for single seat winner-take-all elections (like, say President of the United States). It has distinct advantages over our present system. It is similar to Preference Voting described above. I will explain it by describing how it might be used in an election for the U.S. Presidency. Under our present system third party candidates are at a distinct disadvantage. Not only do they not have the resources that the major parties can provide their candidates but the voters tend to view a vote for a third party candidate as a wasted vote (justifiably). This second disadvantage can be overcome by using Majority Preference Voting (MPV). Under MPV each voter would list his preferences. Suppose in the an election the candidates are Gore, Bush, Buchanan, and Nader (Green Party). Suppose you are disgusted with the two party system and want to express that in your vote, but you are afraid that a vote for Nader might help Bush win (or if you are a conservative a vote for Buchanan might help Gore win). Under MPV you could arrange your ballot as follows: 1. Nader, 2. Buchanan, 3. Gore, 4. Bush. If after all the first preferences are tallied no one candidate has a majority then the candidate with the least votes is eliminated. Say in this example that is Nader. Your vote would then be assigned to Buchanan. All the other Nader votes would be assigned to their second preferences. If, after this there is still no candidate with a majority the last place is again eliminated (say Buchanan) and your vote would then go to Gore. Under this system votes are never wasted. There is no need to put a lesser evil as your first choice. But still it ensures that your worst evil will never benefit from your vote. Third party candidates are much more likely to win in these kinds of elections because they are not marginalized by people’s fear of wasting their vote. As a result they would be taken much more seriously by the media and their overall chances would be greatly improved. They would be more likely to be included in debates and issues which the two major parties might want to avoid would have a greater likelyhood of being discussed.
Where is proportional representation currently in use?
Countries using proportional representation:
(Party List) ALGERIA, ANGOLA, ARGENTINA, AUSTRIA, BELGIUM, BENIN, BOSNIA AND HERZEGOVINA, BRAZIL, BULGARIA, BURKINA FASO, BURUNDI, CAMBODIA, CAPE VERDE, CHILE, COLOMBIA, COSTA RICA, CYPRUS, CZECH REPUBLIC, DENMARK, DOMINICAN REPUBLIC, EL SALVADOR, EQUATORIAL GUINEA, ERITREA, ESTONIA, FINLAND, GREECE, GUINEA-BISSAU, GUYANA, ICELAND, INDONESIA, ISRAEL, LATVIA, LIBERIA, LIECHTENSTEIN, LUXEMBOURG, MOLDOVA, REPUBLIC OF MOZAMBIQUE, NAMIBIA, NETHERLANDS, NETHERLANDS ANTILLES, NEW CALEDONIA, NICARAGUA, NORWAY, PARAGUAY, PERU, POLAND, PORTUGAL, ROMANIA, SAN MARINO, SAO TOME AND PRINCIPE, SLOVAKIA, SLOVENIA, SOUTH AFRICA, SPAIN, SRI LANKA, SURINAME, SWEDEN, SWITZERLAND, THE STATE UNION OF SERBIA AND MONTENEGRO, TURKEY, URUGUAY, WALLIS AND FUTUNA
(Mixed Member Proportional) BOLIVIA, GERMANY, HUNGARY, ITALY, LESOTHO, MEXICO, NEW ZEALAND, VENEZUELA
(Preference Voting) IRELAND, MALTA, AUSTRALIA
Countries not using proportional representation:
(First pass the post) AFGHANISTAN, AMERICAN SAMOA, ANTIGUA AND BARBUDA, ARUBA, BAHAMAS, BANGLADESH, BARBADOS, BELIZE, BHUTAN, BOTSWANA, CANADA, CAYMAN ISLANDS, CONGO, DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC OF, COOK ISLANDS, DOMINICA, ETHIOPIA, GAMBIA, GHANA, GRENADA, GUAM, INDIA, JAMAICA, KENYA, KOREA, DEMOCRATIC PEOPLE'S REPUBLIC OF, MALAWI, MALAYSIA, MARSHALL ISLANDS, MONGOLIA, MONTSERRAT, MOROCCO, MYANMAR, NEPAL, NIGERIA, NORTHERN MARIANA ISLANDS, PAKISTAN, PALAU, PAPUA NEW GUINEA, RWANDA, SAINT KITTS AND NEVIS, SAINT LUCIA, SAINT VINCENT AND THE GRENADINES, SIERRA LEONE, SOLOMON ISLANDS, SUDAN, SWAZILAND, SYRIAN ARAB REPUBLIC, TANZANIA, UNITED REPUBLIC OF, TONGA, TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO, TURKS AND CAICOS ISLANDS, TUVALU, UGANDA, UNITED KINGDOM, UNITED STATES, YEMEN, ZAMBIA, ZIMBABWE
(Two round systems) BELARUS, CENTRAL AFRICAN REPUBLIC, CONGO, CUBA, EGYPT, FRANCE, FRENCH GUIANA, GABON, GUADELOUPE, HAITI, IRAN, ISLAMIC REPUBLIC OF, IRAQ, KAZAKSTAN, KIRIBATI, KYRGYZSTAN, MALI, MAURITANIA, MONACO, REUNION, TAJIKISTAN, TOGO, TURKMENISTAN, UZBEKISTAN, VIETNAM
The above information was gleaned from the International Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance web site (http://www.idea.int/index.htm).
What are the advantages of using proportional representation?
The advantages are many.
* There is much greater voter participation. In countries using PR, voter turnout is usually in the 70% to 95% range.
* Campaigns tend to be issue oriented rather than popularity contests. Because American society is so diverse, it is difficult to find issues that will guarantee majority support. Instead, campaign managers fight to attract swing voters who are not attracted to either candidate. They have discovered the most effective way to do this is by smearing the opponent. Swing voters are more influenced by negative campaigns because they are unattracted to the positive positions of either candidate. Under PR, however, a majority is not required to get elected. Instead politicians run campaigns directed at a particular constituency and the most effective campaigns are issue oriented.
* Minorities and woman get much greater representation under proportional representation. Women in countries using PR generally comprise somewhere in the range of 25% - 35% of elected officials, as opposed to less than 5% here in the U.S. PR has been used in Voting Rights Act cases where it has been shown that gerymandered districts or the use of at-large representation has denied minorities fair representation. PR has proven to be an effective way of ensuring minority representation in Alamagordo, NM and Peoria, IL. Blacks have been continuously represented on the city council and school committee of Cambridge, MA since it instituted its version of PR in 1941.
* There is a much greater selection under proportional representation. Americans come in more than two flavors. There is no way that two political parties can represent the diversity of opinion that exists in this country. Under PR the size of the vote determines the size of the representation, but everyone gets represented.
Okay, granting that proportional representation is a good idea, what are the chances of it being instituted in the United States?
Better than they might appear. PR represents a direct threat to the hegemony of the two major parties so there is little chance that they will institute it on their own. But recently there has been a groundswell of dissatisfaction with the two party system in this country. Third party and independent candidacies have proliferated and calls for term limits and campaign reform are being put forward as never before. If average Americans were only familiar with the idea of proportional representation it could become the flag uniting people who feel they are not represented by their democratic system. And the dissatisfaction spans the political spectrum. But PR’s greatest weakness is that most Americans have never heard of it.
The organized movement for proportional representation in this country is just getting off the ground. The national organization is:
The Center for Voting and Democracy
6905 Fifth Street NW, Suite 200
Washington, DC 20012