Proportional representation is a concept that has been developed in most democratic societies with the glaring exception of the United States. The concept has come into focus recently in the U.S. because the blatant restructuring of electoral districts (gerrymandering), and the divisions in society in general. The current system of winner-take-all leaves large portions of voters in every district in the country without representation. In some cases, where the races are close between Democrats and Republicans, the winner takes everything even when only 50.1% of the electorate voted for them. The other 49.9% end up with no-one representing their interests. That is hardly democratic.
It is interesting that, as political scientist Barbara F. Walter has observed, a majority of civil wars over the last century appear to have broken out in countries with winner-take-all systems. Two parties competing in winner-takes-all elections cannot possibly reflect the diversity of 355 million Americans.
In 2022, more than 200 leading political scientists and historians signed an open letter calling on the U.S. House of Representatives to adopt proportional representation.
This concept brings us closer to the vision of founders like John Adams and James Madison, who both warned against the dangers of two dominant parties, or factions. As Adams wrote in 1776, Congress “should be in miniature, an exact portrait of the people at large. It should think, feel, reason and act like them.” We are currently far from that structure.
So, what is proportional representation, and how would it work?
The first step would be to create more parties so that different levels of opinion could be represented. Two parties cannot possibly do that as the numbers cited above demonstrate.
Suggestions vary but a common theme, that is both consistent with the goals of better representation and the ability to manage the system (a hundred parties certainly wouldn’t work) is six parties, ranging from hard right to hard left. Representation in Congress would then be based on the percentage of the vote each party/candidate receives.
Obviously, that would mean that the total number of representatives in Congress would have to be increased; estimates suggest that the new number would be a little under 600 instead of the current 435. From the beginning of the House in 1789 to the early 20th century, the membership of the House grew roughly in line with the population; at the start there were approximately 34, 000 constituents per representative, by 1911 it was 200,000 per representative, and today it is 760,000 per representative, which is far too many for any one person.
According to many political scientists, the optimal total number of members of the House and Senate combined is the cube root of the nation’s population. Legislatures in democracies around the world roughly align with this ratio, and the U.S. House did as well until its size was frozen by law at 435. Today the cube-root rule would give us 593 members of the House.
Parties could include: (1) The Progressive Party, which emphasizes equity and racial justice; (2) The New Liberal Party, which is more pro-market while still holding liberal social views; (3) The New Populist Party, which combines economic populism with moderate views on cultural and social issues; (4) The Growth and Opportunity Party, which would be socially moderate, market friendly Rockefeller-type republicans; (5) The Patriot Party, which would carry the America First agenda with restrictionist immigration and protectionist economics; and (6) The Christian Conservative Party, which would argue for limited national government and emphasizes religious liberty and biblical morality.
That would pretty much cover the current political scene in the U.S., and would give a far better choice to the electorate. It also would not disrupt the current voting system, which all Americans have become used to using. Details of exactly how this would work would need to be discussed, but there are many examples around the world of how it does, so no-one would be reinventing-the-wheel.
The current system is out-of-line with the founders of the Republic, does not offer a huge proportion of Americans democratic representation, is open to political manipulation, actually promotes divisiveness by only having two choices, and is fundamentally undemocratic. Time for a positive change to proportional representation.
