{"id":583,"date":"2021-03-17T13:49:30","date_gmt":"2021-03-17T13:49:30","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.commoncause.org\/north-carolina\/articles\/building-democracy-2-0-the-promise-of-proportional-voting\/"},"modified":"2021-03-17T13:49:30","modified_gmt":"2021-03-17T13:49:30","slug":"building-democracy-2-0-the-promise-of-proportional-voting","status":"publish","type":"article","link":"https:\/\/www.commoncause.org\/north-carolina\/articles\/building-democracy-2-0-the-promise-of-proportional-voting\/","title":{"rendered":"Building Democracy 2.0: The Promise of Proportional Voting"},"template":"","class_list":["post-583","article","type-article","status-publish","hentry","article_type-blog-post"],"acf":{"details":{"summary":"This is part 10 in a multi-part series examining ways to build an inclusive democracy for the 21st century.","featured_image":null,"article_type":162,"authors":["{\"site_id\":\"68\",\"post_type\":\"person\",\"post_id\":555}"],"related_issues":[109,417],"related_work":false,"location":null},"sidebar":{"helper_enable_sidebar":false,"helper_media_contact":{"heading":"Media Contact","manually_enter_person":false,"person":null,"name":"","role":"","phone":"","email":""},"helper_links_downloads":{"heading":"Links & Downloads","links":null}},"page_layout":[{"acf_fc_layout":"layout_wysiwyg","_acfe_flexible_toggle":null,"component_wysiwyg":{"content":"Introduction<\/strong>\r\n\r\nThis essay examines the electoral system we know the least: \u00a0proportional voting.\u00a0 As noted previously, John Stuart Mills, along with several other political theorists, devised this system in the 19th<\/sup> century.\u00a0 It became widespread as liberal parties in Europe struggled to maintain relevance with the growth of socialist and worker parties.\u00a0 Proportional voting allowed liberal parties as well as conservative parties to win seats without having to attain a majority of votes.\u00a0 Beginning in the early 20th<\/sup> century, the U.S. saw a similar interest in proportional voting.\u00a0 The Progressive Movement made it a priority on its policy agenda, and other organizations such as the Proportional Representation League promoted the idea.\u00a0 A number of U.S. cities adopted a form of proportional voting beginning in 1915 but efforts waned over time.\r\n\r\nUnlike the single round simple majority system, proportional voting is a relatively recent arrival to democracy.\u00a0 It lacks the intuitive appeal of majority voting.\u00a0 We will see that from an operational standpoint, it performs as a near mirror opposite of majority systems.\u00a0 It encourages and thrives on multiple parties.\u00a0 It does not typically result in decisive electoral outcomes that lead to majorities, but instead, it requires coalition building.\u00a0 For this reason, critics worry about the ability of proportional voting to generate functioning governments.\u00a0 By encouraging voters to express their preference rather than to vote strategically (i.e., to prevent a less desirable outcome), proportional voting produces certain advantageous social behaviors in a democratic system.\u00a0 These behaviors provide a strong foundation for democracy borne out by the fact that democracies using proportional voting function well in today\u2019s environment as compared to majority ones.\r\n\r\nDuverger\u2019s Second Law<\/strong>\r\n\r\nAs described in the last essay, Maurice Duverger is credited with identifying the connection between the simple majority single round voting and two-party systems.\u00a0 Known as Duverger\u2019s Law, this theory says that majority systems cause voters to select candidates who may not be preferred but are the most likely to defeat the candidate they like the least.\u00a0 This \u201cpsychological factor\u201d encourages a two-party system by polarizing the electorate, which undercuts the rise of third parties.\u00a0 Duverger\u2019s second law gets much less attention.\u00a0 It relates to proportional voting systems.\u00a0 While a simple majority system tends to generate and sustain a two-party system, a proportional voting system tends to generate and sustain a multi-party system.\r\n\r\nIn Political Parties<\/u>, Duverger recounts the example of Belgium.\u00a0 Socialists made great strides at gaining seats in the 1890s to the detriment of the Liberal Party.\u00a0 The conservative Catholic Party could see what was coming under the existing majority voting system:\u00a0 within a few short election cycles it would face the Socialist Party on its own.\u00a0 Even worse, if the Socialist Party gained a majority of seats, the Catholic Party would lose any seat at the table.\u00a0 In response, the Catholic Party instituted proportional voting, helping the Liberal Party to make a comeback.\u00a0 That allowed supporters of the Liberal Party to avoid having to make the difficult choice imposed by a majority voting system between the Socialists and Catholics.\u00a0 Proportional voting ensured that several parties had a seat at the table.\r\n\r\nDuverger does not provide much detail about the relationship between proportional voting and multi-party systems.\u00a0 He simply points out that multi-party systems arise naturally in the absence of strategic voting.\u00a0 He writes:\r\n

The polarization of the single-ballot system is pointless under proportional representation where no vote is lost (at least in theory); hence we have the opposite process of \u2018depolarization.\u2019\u00a0 The first effect of proportional representation is therefore to put an end to any tendency towards a two-party system; in this respect it may be considered as a powerful brake.<\/p>\r\nHe continues that with proportional voting:\r\n

There is no encouragement to parties with similar tendencies to fuse, as their division does them little or no harm.\u00a0 There is nothing to prevent splits within parties, for the total representation of the two separate factions will not be mechanically reduced by the effect of the vote; it may be psychologically, by the confusion it sows among the electors, but the ballot plays no part in this.<\/p>\r\nIn essence, political parties react to an environment that does not penalize them for receiving less than a majority of the vote.\u00a0 They no longer have to form broad, unstable coalitions to win.\u00a0 They can afford to shed certain constituencies that strain their core philosophy or identity.\u00a0 Duverger notes, \u201cThe only attenuation of the fundamental tendency to preserve an established multi-partism comes from the collective nature of proportional representation: the party must have organization, discipline, structure.\u201d\u00a0 In other words, parties in a proportional system still must compete as a viable enterprise with other parties \u2013 they simply do not have to maneuver within a context of polarity between two dominant factions.\r\n\r\nTypes of Proportional Voting Systems<\/strong>\r\n\r\nThe idea of proportional voting systems arose after the implementation of majority systems.\u00a0 As European nations gradually moved toward democracy in the mid-19th<\/sup> century, they benefited from observing and thinking about how electoral systems worked in practice.\u00a0 Some political theorists thought deeply about the meaning of representative government, as we will see in the next essay, and this drove experimentation with new ideas.\u00a0 These thinkers could see the benefits of a proportional system.\u00a0 However, given the complexity of this approach, it took trial and error and significant theoretical analysis to understand how a proportional system could be implemented in an election.\u00a0 By the latter part of the 19th<\/sup> century, many of the details were resolved. Ultimately, it took the self-interest of party leaders under threat from rivals to spur the adoption of these systems at the dawn of the 20th<\/sup> century.\r\n\r\nFundamentally, proportional voting seeks to translate a party\u2019s share of the vote into a corresponding share of seats in the legislature.\u00a0 In other words, a party that receives less than a majority or plurality of votes may still gain seats in proportion to its share of votes (e.g., a party receiving 30% of the votes wins 30% of the seats). \u00a0To work, proportional voting requires multi-member districts.\u00a0 Typically, the number of votes needed to win a seat in a multi-member district, referred to as a threshold or \u201cquota,\u201d is a function of the vote total divided by the number of seats.\u00a0 For example, if 100,000 votes are cast in a district with ten seats, a party must win at least 10,000 votes to win a seat (i.e., the quota is 10,000). \u00a0This formula ensures that the number of winners does not exceed the number of seats in the district, assuming that votes are evenly distributed among all parties or candidates.\u00a0 Of course, most elections do not result in the even distribution of votes.\u00a0 Usually, there will be leftover votes above quota for some candidates and parties.\u00a0 Therefore, proportional systems must include a mechanism to allocate leftover votes until all seats are filled.\r\n\r\nSystem designers refer to the number of seats in a district as \u201cdistrict magnitude.\u201d\u00a0 District magnitude has several operational impacts on elections and the performance of a democracy.\u00a0 The larger the district magnitude, the more seats to fill in an election.\u00a0 An entire country can form a single district with many seats to fill.\u00a0 This is the case in Israel and the Netherlands, which have 120 and 150 seats respectively.\u00a0 The greater the district magnitude, the greater the proportionality.\u00a0 The greater the district magnitude, the easier it is for parties to make quota and gain seats.\u00a0 Therefore, the greater the district magnitude, the more political parties represented in government. \u00a0For example, in Israel or the Netherlands, it is feasible for a party to win a seat with as little as 1.5% of the vote, allowing smaller parties to win seats.\r\n\r\nThere are two main types of proportional voting systems:\u00a0 the Single Transferable Vote (STV) and the list proportional representation (List PR) system.\u00a0 The STV system is only used in a few instances \u2013 mostly in countries with a connection to Great Britain. \u00a0On the other hand, the List PR system is the most popular system in the world with most new democracies utilizing it as well as most countries in Europe, Latin America, and Africa.\r\n\r\nSingle Transferable Vote<\/strong>\r\n\r\nSeveral political theorists created the STV system independently during the 19th<\/sup> century.\u00a0 Even though it predated the List PR system and is a favorite of political scientists, its use remains limited.\u00a0 The Republic of Ireland provides the best-known example.\u00a0 Other applications include Malta, the Australian Federal Senate and a handful of local jurisdictions in New Zealand, Scotland, Northern Ireland and British Columbia.\u00a0 \u00a0Thomas Hare, a political philosopher and member of British Parliament, is most associated with the STV system.\u00a0 Hare wrote Treatise on the Election of Representatives<\/u> between 1859 and 1873.\u00a0 In the preface, he wrote that proportional representation would \u201cend the evils of corruption, violent discontent and restricted power of selection or voter choice.\u201d \u00a0Hare was a contemporary of John Stuart Mills, who extolled the virtues of STV, describing it as \u201cthe greatest improvement of which the system of representative government is susceptible; an improvement which \u2026 exactly meets and cures the grand, and what before seemed inherent, defect of the representative system.\u201d\r\n\r\nIn essence, STV employs a key aspect of the Alternative Vote (AV) system (also known as preferential or ranked choice voting). Like the AV system, voters rank candidates on the ballot according to preference.\u00a0 However, STV does not require a candidate to receive a majority of the votes to win a seat.\u00a0 Instead, STV uses multi-member districts and a quota, which makes it a proportional system.\u00a0 Voters rank individual candidates listed on the ballot. \u00a0Candidates who reach the quota fill a seat.\u00a0 If a round of counting produces no winner, the candidate with the lowest number of votes is dropped and counting continues until all seats are filled.\u00a0 STV scores well with political theorists because preferential voting allows seats to be filled by counting ballots in successive rounds rather than using a formula to fill seats as is necessary with the List PR system.\u00a0 But voters are not required to rank all of the candidates on the ballot.\u00a0 This can result in the disqualification of ballots during subsequent rounds of counting.\u00a0 In some cases, it can result in candidates winning seats even though they have not achieved the quota.\r\n\r\nAs noted, very few countries use STV and only two use it for their lower house:\u00a0 the Republic of Ireland and Malta.\u00a0 Both of these countries have small populations.\u00a0 The Republic of Ireland\u2019s population is less than half that of North Carolina\u2019s, and Malta has about 500,000 people. \u00a0The story behind the adoption in Ireland informs our thinking about STV systems.\u00a0 The British pushed for a proportional system at independence in 1922 to ensure the Protestant minority would have a voice in the parliament or Dail.\u00a0 As previously stated, the British never adopted proportional voting so had little familiarity with List PR.\u00a0 Instead, STV was selected given its status among British political scientists. \u00a0There are around 166 members of the Dail and roughly 40 constituencies or districts.\u00a0 That means each district has four or five seats.\u00a0 Consequently, the district magnitude sustains four or five parties that win most of the seats in the Dail.\u00a0 The largest party, Fianna Fail, initiated a referendum in 1959 and 1968 to replace STV with a majority system, reflecting the natural tendency of larger parties to eliminate competition from smaller parties.\u00a0 Both referenda failed.\r\n\r\nThrough Ireland\u2019s post-independence history, two parties have dominated its politics:\u00a0 the centrist, Fianna Fail, and center-right, Fine Gael.\u00a0 In recent election cycles Sinn Fein has made significant gains at the expense of Fianna Fail.\u00a0 Given that voters can choose among candidates within a party, Ireland\u2019s STV system creates intense intra-party competition.\u00a0 Critics claim that incumbents focus on constituent service at the expense of broader policy matters that effect the nation. One reason for this is the ratio of representatives to population.\u00a0 It is 1:20,000 in Ireland as opposed to 1:50,000 for state house districts in North Carolina and 1:750,000 for members of the U.S. House.\u00a0 This ratio maintains a close connection between members of parliament and voters.\u00a0 Given the size of Ireland (less than half the population of North Carolina), it is difficult to draw too many conclusions.\u00a0 Regardless, the Republic of Ireland is ranked among the top 10 democracies in the world by the Democracy Index, which will be described in more detail later.\r\n\r\nList PR System<\/strong>\r\n\r\nLike other proportional voting systems, List PR originated in the 19th<\/sup> century as political theorists looked for alternatives to majority voting.\u00a0 The first clear description of the List PR system came from Victor D\u2019Hondt in Belgium.\u00a0 He described the system in 1878, and Belgium adopted the system for its parliamentary elections in 1900.\u00a0 It quickly expanded in Europe for the reasons described previously.\u00a0 Now, the List PR system is the most popular electoral system in the world with about 35% of democracies using it (in contrast, 24% of democracies use a first-past-the-post system).\u00a0 It is also interesting to note that among the approximately 30 nations that have undergone electoral reform in the last 30 years, most have moved from a majority system to a List PR system or a system with more proportional elements.\r\n\r\nIn its most basic form, each party provides a list of candidates for the seats in a multi-member district.\u00a0 Electors vote for a party\u2019s list.\u00a0 Parties are allocated seats based on their vote total.\u00a0 Lists can be open or closed.\u00a0 With an open list, voters can select among candidates on a party\u2019s list.\u00a0 With a closed list, voters must select a party\u2019s list as presented.\u00a0 System designers find that districts with between three and seven seats work well.\u00a0 These systems sustain a manageable number of political parties.\u00a0 Some countries by law set a minimum threshold to win a seat.\u00a0 For example, Germany and New Zealand require that a party win at least five percent of the vote nationwide to gain a seat in parliament.\u00a0 This rule is intended to reduce the role of fringe groups in government.\r\n\r\nThe List PR system requires technical support not present with majority voting systems. \u00a0A common issue concerns the assignment of leftover votes or votes not used to meet the quota for a seat.\u00a0 There are several ways electoral system designers translate leftover votes into seats.\u00a0 The most popular includes the Highest Average method and the Largest Remainder method.\u00a0 The Highest Average method requires the number of votes received by each party be divided successively by a series of divisors.\u00a0 This produces a table of averages.\u00a0 The table allocates seats based on the divisor until no open seats remain vacant.\u00a0 This method tends to favor larger parties because it skews upward the threshold required for attaining seats. Other systems use the Largest Remainder method.\u00a0 When some seats remain available because no party exceeded a required threshold, the remaining seats are awarded under this method to parties in order of the number of left-over votes they have.\u00a0 The approach can help smaller parties pick up seats.\r\n\r\nExperience with List PR in New Zealand<\/strong>\r\n\r\nNew Zealand provides an interesting example of a variant of the List PR system.\u00a0 As a member of the British Commonwealth, New Zealand inherited a majority voting system.\u00a0 New Zealand followed a similar pattern to Great Britain.\u00a0 A rising Labour Party supported proportional voting at the dawn of the 20th<\/sup> century.\u00a0 The Liberal Party resisted reform until it was too late, and the Labour Party replaced it as the second major party.\u00a0 Concentrated in urban areas, the Labour Party suffered from a disproportionate number of wasted votes. \u00a0Finally, the nation experienced highly distorted outcomes in two successive national elections in 1978 and 1981.\u00a0 In both instances, the conservative National Party retained an absolute majority of seats in the House of Representatives even though the Labour Party won more votes.\r\n\r\nThese anomalous outcomes led the Labour Party to establish a Royal Commission on the Electoral System after gaining power in 1984.\u00a0 The Commission studied a number of electoral systems and issued a report in 1986, recommending adoption of a Mixed Member Proportional (MMP) system similar to Germany\u2019s.\u00a0 As the Labour Party saw its electoral fortunes improve in the late 1980s, it backed away from the recommendations.\u00a0 The National Party saw a political opening.\u00a0 In its 1990 election manifesto, it promised a referendum on the Commission\u2019s recommendations.\u00a0 The National Party regained a majority in 1990, and then it too tried to back away from reform.\u00a0 It took substantial public outcry during a recession to pressure the National Party to deliver on its promise.\u00a0 The government presented two referenda.\u00a0 The first asked voters whether they supported \u201ca change to the voting system.\u201d \u00a0It passed with nearly 85% in 1992. \u00a0The following year, the public was presented with four options to replace the majority system.\u00a0 A strong majority approved the proposed MMP system.\u00a0 There was one final binding referendum in 1993 in which both major parties vigorously opposed the MMP system.\u00a0 It still passed easily, and the new system finally went into effect in 1996.\r\n\r\nUnder the MMP system, electors have two votes.\u00a0 First, they vote for a candidate in a single member district under a majority voting system. Second, they vote for a political party at the national level.\u00a0 The MMP system takes the results from the national vote and allocates seats to the respective parties proportionally.\u00a0 For example, if a party wins 25% of the party votes, it should receive 30 seats in the 120 member Parliament.\u00a0 If that party has won 20 seats through the single member district vote, the MMP system allocates an additional 10 seats to the party to achieve parity with its party vote.\u00a0 Like some other proportional systems, New Zealand imposes a threshold.\u00a0 To win a share of the party votes, a party must exceed 5% of the national vote or win at least one single member district.\u00a0 Since adoption of the MMP system, multiple parties have met this threshold \u2013 usually five or so.\u00a0 Importantly, the proportionality index fell from an average of 11% prior to reform to an average of 3% since the reform (with 0% being perfectly proportional).\r\n\r\nPolitics in New Zealand has now adapted to the proportional system.\u00a0 No longer does one party gain a majority of seats in government.\u00a0 While the two major parties continue to garner most of the seats, they must form coalitions with other parties to reach a majority. \u00a0This requires compromise and collaboration. The accommodation has generated results.\u00a0 For example, parliament has had no problem passing budgets.\u00a0 After decades of deficits, the country has run fiscal surpluses.\u00a0 Since the reform, no government has suffered from a no confidence vote. \u00a0Voters report greater satisfaction with government.\u00a0 The National Party did manage to force one more retention vote on the MMP system in 2011.\u00a0 It passed with nearly 60% of the vote.\u00a0 The Democracy Index now ranks New Zealand as the fourth strongest democracy in the world.\r\n\r\nParticipation<\/strong>\r\n\r\nUnder Rousseau\u2019s framework for democracy, proportional voting systems achieve high marks.\u00a0 Interestingly, the attributes of proportional systems tend to be nearly the mirror opposite of majority systems.\u00a0 As noted previously, Rousseau laid out a vision for democracy where the will of the people is revealed through participation, formation of majorities, shifting coalitions, equality and choice. These attributes make for a healthy democracy.\u00a0 Surveys show that voter turnout in proportional systems is higher than majority ones.\u00a0 With fewer wasted votes, voters believe their vote has a greater chance of helping their candidate reach the quota needed for a seat.\u00a0 In addition, parties play a more prominent role in List PR systems.\u00a0 As we saw earlier with the \u201ccalculus of voting,\u201d parties drive turnout by reducing the cost of voting.\r\n\r\nVoters in proportional systems also say in surveys that elected officials are more responsive to their interests, which may also drive-up participation. \u00a0With multi-member districts, parties seek votes wherever they can get them.\u00a0 A vote for the conservative party matters just as much in the city as it does in the countryside.\u00a0 The key is to exceed the quota needed for a seat. \u00a0The need to pursue votes wherever they are enhances voter satisfaction and participation in elections. \u00a0In contrast, majority voting systems more often have noncompetitive races because single member districts enable the manipulation of district boundaries through gerrymandering.\u00a0 For example, only about 10% of the legislative races in North Carolina have been competitive in recent election cycles.\u00a0 When the election is predetermined, voters have less motivation to turn out.\r\n\r\nOf course, the ballots for proportional voting systems are more complex by virtue of multi-member districts. \u00a0Rather than voting for one candidate per office, a voter can be faced with multiple choices for a district.\u00a0 In addition, the STV system adds a level of complexity due to the ranking system.\u00a0 After the fall of the Berlin Wall, Estonia established an STV voting system.\u00a0 The country abandoned it after one attempt in 1990, finding it confusing and instead switched to the List PR system.\u00a0 In sum, proportional systems, particularly the List PR system, encourage strong participation despite the increased ballot choices presented to voters.\r\n\r\nFormation of Majorities<\/strong>\r\n\r\nThe major criticism of proportional voting centers around its performance post-election.\u00a0 As noted in the last essay, a majority system claims the ability to produce law as envisioned by Rousseau when a single party wins in a two-party system. In a proportional voting system, a single party rarely wins a majority of seats in an election.\u00a0 Therefore, these systems require an additional step to create a governing majority.\u00a0 Parties must form coalitions after the election to achieve a majority that can enact laws.\u00a0 Critics claim this leads to legislative gridlock or undue influence by minor parties needed to reach a majority of seats.\u00a0 There are certainly examples where this happens, particularly in countries new to democracy or with districts that have a large magnitude, encouraging a multitude of parties.\u00a0 However, in mature democracies with a proportional system, parties typically form majorities with ease.\u00a0 Typically, any coalition government includes one of the two larger, centrist parties, which provides stability and continuity.\r\n\r\nMore importantly, these governments function at a high level.\u00a0 One measure is reflected in the Democracy Index published every year by The Economist<\/u>.\u00a0 This analysis considers accountability to the electorate between elections, checks and balances, transparency and openness. \u00a0It is notable that this Index also prioritizes the functioning of the legislative branch.\u00a0 As the branch that makes law, it plays a central role in any representative democracy.\u00a0 Nearly all of the highest performing democracies are proportional ones.\u00a0 Since parties require coalition building to reach a majority in a proportional system, voters expect compromise and collaboration.\u00a0 Seldom are these democracies marked by campaigns declaring the election as \u201cthe most important in history.\u201d \u00a0Voters do not expect an election to result in the final vanquishment of their odious enemy.\u00a0 The election simply marks another opportunity to see more favored parties gain a stronger hand in negotiating with coalition partners to form a government.\u00a0 This approach allows for the implementation of policies that require long-term political support in government. \u00a0It is no surprise that the Democracy Index now places the U.S. in the category of \u201cFlawed Democracy\u201d mostly due to low marks for functioning of government and political culture.\r\n\r\nShifting Coalitions<\/strong>\r\n\r\nSimilar to the formation of majorities, critics of proportional systems point to the stasis of coalitions from one election cycle to the next.\u00a0 Rousseau cited the dominance of one faction as anathema to the general will.\u00a0 Democratic societies require a dynamism that sees viewpoints and interests rise and fall as the needs of society change.\u00a0 With the need to form coalitions, do proportional systems find it difficult to respond nimbly to voters as reflected in election outcomes?\u00a0 Some scholars have noted that the third largest party in a proportional system often control government by acting as the perennial key to majority rule.\u00a0 Additionally, a party that performs weakly can retain seats over multiple cycles because it is easier to exceed a quota than reach a majority of votes.\u00a0 Also, it is more difficult to target any particular party when campaigning in a multi-party system.\r\n\r\nDespite the lack of dramatic swings and life or death campaigns, proportional systems do produce new coalitions from cycle to cycle.\u00a0 Note the recent rise of Sinn Fein in Ireland, which has shifted government from center-right to center-left in recent years.\u00a0 Since parties can shed constituencies and still win seats, they can afford to be more coherent and consistent on policy.\u00a0 For example, New Zealand has experienced the rise of new parties such as United Future, which advocates socially conservative but economically centrist policies.\u00a0 ACT New Zealand advances a libertarian agenda, which is socially liberal and fiscally conservative.\u00a0 The success of these parties signals to a coalition government which policies require attention between elections.\u00a0 In the U.S., the Republican Party and Democratic Party both express, uncomfortably, conflicting philosophies in and out of office.\u00a0 Needing to hold together broad, unstable constituencies, our major parties find it difficult to make tough policy choices that could alienate a faction of the party.\u00a0 Proportional voting provides spaces for parties to compete on policy, knowing they will still have a role in government.\u00a0 Consequently, coalition governments will shift over time in response to the clarity resulting from an election cycle.\r\n\r\nEquality<\/strong>\r\n\r\nThe proportional voting system was devised specifically to address concerns over the lack of equality associated with majority systems. \u00a0Political theorists recognized majority systems treat voters unequally in two ways:\u00a0 first, they can permanently lock minority groups and minority perspectives out of any representation; and second, they can exacerbate the number of wasted votes so that some voices count more than others.\u00a0 Proportional voting cures these ills.\u00a0 John Stuart Mills wrote that without proportionality, \u201cthere is not equal government, but a government of inequality and privilege; one part of the people over the rest.\u201d\u00a0 Proportional voting remedies this outcome by ensuring minority perspectives are represented equally in proportion to their support.\u00a0 For those jurisdictions where one party enjoys a sustained majority, a proportional system ensures minority views also have a voice.\u00a0 While minority parties may not have the ability to drive legislation, they can participate in the legislative process and influence it.\r\n\r\nMore importantly, proportional voting obviates the scourge of wasted votes.\u00a0 As noted in the last essay, gerrymandering captures the worst element of wasted votes where one party manipulates district boundaries to dilute the number of seats by the opposing party. \u00a0It concentrates supporters of one party in a few districts so that another party can win many more districts by closer margins.\u00a0 Consequently, gerrymandering artificially inflates the power of the party drawing districts. \u00a0Proportional voting dramatically reduces the chance of gerrymanders through multi-member districts.\u00a0 Such districts help ensure the percentage of votes received by a party or candidate corresponds to the seats won. \u00a0As noted, the most extreme examples are the Netherlands and Israel, which both have one national district so there is no mechanism available to manipulate districts.\u00a0 Regardless, even districts with four or five seats have far fewer wasted votes than majority systems.\r\n\r\nChoice<\/strong>\r\n\r\nWhile proportional voting scores well for participation and equality, choice offers its greatest attribute. \u00a0The last essay noted that majority systems undermine choice when more than two choices appear on the ballot in several ways;\u00a0 first, they can cause outcomes inconsistent with voter preferences, second, they can suppress opportunities for minority and female candidates; and third, they can distort voter preferences through strategic voting.\u00a0 Proportional voting systems avoid these problems.\u00a0 As noted, proportional voting lists multiple candidates for multiple seats on the ballot.\u00a0 Therefore, this system does not have to manufacture a way to whittle multiple candidates to two before selecting a winner.\u00a0 Proportional voting does not completely escape the need to employ formulas as noted with leftover votes, but those mechanisms are better equipped to translate voter preferences to outcomes than those associated with majority systems. \u00a0It is no surprise that Condorcet, who exposed the flaws of majority systems, devised a voting system with proportional aspects.\r\n\r\nRepresentation by Minorities and Women<\/strong>\r\n\r\nAs noted in the last essay, the simple majority voting system tends to diminish the representation by women and minorities in legislative bodies.\u00a0 For this reason, it unnecessarily limits choice.\u00a0 This phenomenon \u2013 known as the \u201cmost broadly acceptable candidate\u201d theory \u2013 occurs in a two-party system that relies on homogeneity to appeal to disparate coalitions for success.\u00a0 Proportional voting obviates this tendency by encouraging parties to advance lists with a diverse array of candidates.\u00a0 Not needing a majority to win seats, parties can appeal to a range of constituent groups. \u00a0The Electoral System Design Handbook cites ample research showing that racial and ethnic minorities as well as women win many more seats in a proportional system as compared to a winner-take-all voting system. \u00a014 of the top 20 nations at electing women are List PR systems.\r\n\r\nFreedom of Choice<\/strong>\r\n\r\nLastly, the proportional system affords latitude to voters in choosing a candidate or party.\u00a0 By doing so, it has a significant psychological effect in the way they behave within the political system. \u00a0Importantly, proportional voting allows voters to express their preference rather than to vote strategically.\u00a0 As described in the previous essay, strategic voting can contribute to a negative feedback loop of polarization as voters are increasingly motivated by hatred of an opposing party rather than support for a preferred choice.\u00a0 With proportional voting, there is no penalty for voting for a candidate who cannot win a majority of votes.\u00a0 Candidates merely have to achieve quota.\u00a0 Therefore, proportional voting encourages support for a variety of parties, which depolarizes the electorate.\u00a0 Since proportional voting encourages the free expression of preferences, it reveals the diversity of choices expressed by voters, unlocking the collective brain. \u00a0While proportional systems often result in coalition governments, those coalitions can more accurately represent the will of the people, leading to decisions over public goods reflective of the diverse interests of the populace.\r\n\r\nThe Promise of Proportional Voting<\/strong>\r\n\r\nProportional voting arose out of a conscious search for a system that addressed certain defects of majority voting.\u00a0 Political theorists could see that majority systems unduly squelched minority perspectives from participating in government.\u00a0 They also understood how majority voting encouraged the manipulation of districts to entrench certain interests.\u00a0 In response, theorists envisioned a system that gave a voice to minority interests.\u00a0 However, it took time to devise a voting system that generated winners in proportion to their share of the vote.\u00a0 More importantly, it took unique political circumstances at the dawn of the 20th<\/sup> century to permit reforms that diminished the power of the major parties and allowed others a seat at the table.\u00a0 The experience in New Zealand shows that public pressure can lead to reform when electoral outcomes expose the flaws of majority voting.\u00a0 Perhaps the greatest attribute for proportional voting relates to the characteristic identified by Duverger:\u00a0 it \u201cdepolarizes\u201d voters by encouraging multiple parties.\u00a0 At a time when polarization poses an existential threat to democracy, such an attribute has tremendous value.\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\nMack Paul is a member of the state advisory board of Common Cause NC and a founding partner of Morningstar Law Group.<\/em>\r\n\r\nParts in this series:\r\n\r\nIntroduction: Building Democracy 2.0<\/a>\r\n\r\nPart 1: What Is Democracy and Why Is It Important?<\/a>\r\n\r\nPart 2: How the Idea of Freedom Makes the First Innovation Possible<\/a>\r\n\r\nPart 3: The Second Innovation that Gave Rise to Modern Democracy<\/a>\r\n\r\nPart 4: The Rise and Function of Political Parties \u2013 Setting the Record Straight<\/a>\r\n\r\nPart 5: How Political Parties Turned Conflict into a Productive Force<\/a>\r\n\r\nPart 6: Parties and the Challenge of Voter Engagement<\/a>\r\n\r\nPart 7: The Progressive Movement and the Decline of Parties in America<\/a>\r\n\r\nPart 8: Rousseau and \u2018the Will of the People\u2019<\/a>\r\n\r\nPart 9: The Dark Secret of Majority\u00a0Voting<\/a>\r\n\r\nPart 10: The Promise of Proportional\u00a0Voting<\/a>\r\n\r\nPart 11: Majorities, Minorities and Innovation in Electoral\u00a0Design<\/a>\r\n\r\nPart 12: The Misdirected Attempts at Electoral Reform in\u00a0the\u00a0U.S.<\/a>\r\n\r\nPart 13: Building Democracy 2.0: The Uses and Abuses of Redistricting in American Democracy<\/a>"}}]},"yoast_head":"\nBuilding Democracy 2.0: The Promise of Proportional Voting - Common Cause North Carolina<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.commoncause.org\/north-carolina\/articles\/building-democracy-2-0-the-promise-of-proportional-voting\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Building Democracy 2.0: The Promise of Proportional Voting\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.commoncause.org\/north-carolina\/articles\/building-democracy-2-0-the-promise-of-proportional-voting\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Common Cause North Carolina\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/www.commoncause.org\/north-carolina\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/08\/common-cause-share-image.png\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"1200\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"630\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/png\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.commoncause.org\/north-carolina\/articles\/building-democracy-2-0-the-promise-of-proportional-voting\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.commoncause.org\/north-carolina\/articles\/building-democracy-2-0-the-promise-of-proportional-voting\/\",\"name\":\"Building Democracy 2.0: The Promise of Proportional Voting - Common Cause North Carolina\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.commoncause.org\/north-carolina\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2021-03-17T13:49:30+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.commoncause.org\/north-carolina\/articles\/building-democracy-2-0-the-promise-of-proportional-voting\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.commoncause.org\/north-carolina\/articles\/building-democracy-2-0-the-promise-of-proportional-voting\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.commoncause.org\/north-carolina\/articles\/building-democracy-2-0-the-promise-of-proportional-voting\/#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.commoncause.org\/north-carolina\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Building Democracy 2.0: The Promise of Proportional Voting\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.commoncause.org\/north-carolina\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.commoncause.org\/north-carolina\/\",\"name\":\"Common Cause North Carolina\",\"description\":\"\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\/\/www.commoncause.org\/north-carolina\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO Premium plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Building Democracy 2.0: The Promise of Proportional Voting - Common Cause North Carolina","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.commoncause.org\/north-carolina\/articles\/building-democracy-2-0-the-promise-of-proportional-voting\/","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Building Democracy 2.0: The Promise of Proportional Voting","og_url":"https:\/\/www.commoncause.org\/north-carolina\/articles\/building-democracy-2-0-the-promise-of-proportional-voting\/","og_site_name":"Common Cause North Carolina","og_image":[{"width":1200,"height":630,"url":"https:\/\/www.commoncause.org\/north-carolina\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/08\/common-cause-share-image.png","type":"image\/png"}],"twitter_card":"summary_large_image","schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.commoncause.org\/north-carolina\/articles\/building-democracy-2-0-the-promise-of-proportional-voting\/","url":"https:\/\/www.commoncause.org\/north-carolina\/articles\/building-democracy-2-0-the-promise-of-proportional-voting\/","name":"Building Democracy 2.0: The Promise of Proportional Voting - Common Cause North Carolina","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.commoncause.org\/north-carolina\/#website"},"datePublished":"2021-03-17T13:49:30+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.commoncause.org\/north-carolina\/articles\/building-democracy-2-0-the-promise-of-proportional-voting\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.commoncause.org\/north-carolina\/articles\/building-democracy-2-0-the-promise-of-proportional-voting\/"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.commoncause.org\/north-carolina\/articles\/building-democracy-2-0-the-promise-of-proportional-voting\/#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.commoncause.org\/north-carolina\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Building Democracy 2.0: The Promise of Proportional Voting"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.commoncause.org\/north-carolina\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.commoncause.org\/north-carolina\/","name":"Common Cause North Carolina","description":"","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.commoncause.org\/north-carolina\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"}]}},"distributor_meta":false,"distributor_terms":false,"distributor_media":false,"distributor_original_site_name":"Common Cause North Carolina","distributor_original_site_url":"https:\/\/www.commoncause.org\/north-carolina","push-errors":false,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.commoncause.org\/north-carolina\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/article\/583","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.commoncause.org\/north-carolina\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/article"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.commoncause.org\/north-carolina\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/article"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.commoncause.org\/north-carolina\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/article\/583\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.commoncause.org\/north-carolina\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=583"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}