Advantages to PR

Expanding Choice

American voters are currently limited to the Republican/Democrat duopoly. Though we would not allow two products to control the market in any industry, we maintain a voting system - the vehicle of our most sacred right - that similarly limits choice. In our voting system, third parties can only serve as spoilers, taking votes away from the major party that most closely resembles its own views. Because none can gain a majority of votes in any single district, no third options are viable.

Sometimes not even two choices are available. 90% of incumbents are re-elected in each House election, a rate that rivals that of the height of the Soviet Union's single party system; the average incumbent margin of victory is 30%. Most legislative elections take place in "safe districts" and can reasonably be called "no-choice" elections. In addition, incumbents use redistricting powers to draw district lines, a process amounting to legislators choosing their constituents instead of the other way around. PR with multi-member districts would allow choice in every district, with each voter involved in a critical election. One only needs to look at countries with a PR system. Third parties have formed at comparable rates in the U.S. and in European countries with PR systems; half of the new parties in Europe have eventually won legislative seats but no third parties have won seats in the U.S. In a PR system, nuanced positions would be important for candidates to differentiate themselves in crowded fields. The current system encourages candidates to make bipolar distinctions instead of advocating a unique program for support. PR would allow a range of choices across the political spectrum because any perspective held by even a low threshold of the population would be available.

Increasing Participation

In a PR system, all voters can swing their votes to any number of parties, so their involvement is more important to the outcome of the election. One reason for low voter turnout in the U.S. is that voters feel they have no one to vote for, only someone to vote against. PR would eliminate the "lesser of two evils" choice required of voters and would therefore encourage active participation rather than apathy. Experience shows us that the more competitive a house election, the higher the participation rate. Thus, a system where every race is competitive would increase turnout overall. In fact, voter turnout is 10 to 12 percent higher in countries that use PR than in similar countries that do not use PR.

Potentially more important than increased voting rates, PR encourages citizens to involve themselves in the political process. Electoral viability for social movements, single-issue supporters, and third parties would be a powerful organizing force. If voters felt they could make a difference with their participation, they would be more inclined to volunteer for a campaign or become an outspoken activist.

Improving Political Debate

The current political system stifles the diversity of political debate. Candidates are driven to the "middle" of the political spectrum. Candidates target swing voters, those that haven't matched their ideology with either party. This segment of the population yields a disproportionate level of power regardless of its general public appeal. Progressives, libertarians, social conservatives, socialists, and those with a single-issue focus are currently left on the margins of political debate. Not only are third parties literally excluded from debates and given no viability, the bipolar liberal-conservative paradigm permeates our political discussions. As a result, the vast majority of ideological voices are silenced and important ideas are left out of our range of political opinion.

PR offers a 'new kind of political conversation.' If set free and encouraged by our political system, the sheer diversity of political thought in a nation of our size with advanced communications technology and an educated population would be extraordinary. New perspectives would be included in the political debate by gaining media access from electoral viability and through organized movement. Once third parties elect representatives, their well-known leaders will be given a platform to challenge conventional wisdom. Ideological groups can present ongoing challenges to majority opinion, a continuing healthy speculation. PR would permit the sharing of more radical ideas as well, leading to a more exciting public debate. Open political discussions representative of the diversity of American thought would allow reform efforts to gain ground. Articulated dissent is needed not only to check the majority viewpoint but also to build consensus for societal change.

Solving Campaign Calamities

Current campaigns are predicated on tightly scripted made-for-television messages with little substantive policy presentation. Consultants use focus groups of swing voters to determine the right language to sell a candidate image just like Coke or Pepsi. Straightforward explanations of policy positions in order to attract support have no place in our political culture. Most voters voice tremendous concern over the predominance of negative messages but are then forced to vote for the 'lesser of two evils,' promising ongoing negativity.

PR would undermine the 'culture of negative campaigning' because multiple candidates would be elected from each district and the number of candidates in each race would rise considerably. Candidates would have no incentive to engage in mudslinging. Multiple parties would also end the dominance of candidate-centered politics that has led to our current obsession with private affairs. With a diversity of ideologies presented, each party would be forced to lay out a comprehensive agenda, distinguishing itself from other parties. Voters would get clearer pictures about the positions of more homogenous, focused parties and would not be forced to 'vote for the individual.' PR would also make gerrymandering difficult because fewer votes could be wasted; virtually any multi-member district drawn would not be completely safe for any set of incumbents. In addition, because geographic representation would be less important than ideological representation, PR would diminish the current legislative pork barreling.

Allowing Minority Voices To Be Heard

Fully one quarter of the American population is black or Latino but because these races are minorities in every state, only one U.S. Senator is of either race. The Voting Rights Act requires government to design elections in ways that give racial minorities realistic opportunities to be represented but our current system does not meet that challenge. PR is a much better method of achieving representation then gerrymandering race-based Congressional districts, some of which have been ruled unconstitutional. It is an adequate policy response that does not rely on the institutionalization of the stereotype that minorities can only be represented by minorities. Instead, racial balance is likely to be achieved without taking stock of racial identity in creating districts. South Africa, a predominantly black nation, recently adopted PR in its transition to democracy in order to assure representation for the white minority. PR would also encourage minority mobilization because potential representation would provide an incentive for organized political efforts. Minorities could also swing among several parties and would therefore be more influential than in the current system. In contrast, the Democrats now take for granted that they will obtain 90% of the black vote and do little to address the concerns of those voters.

Women also traditionally win more representation in multi-seat districts than in one-seat districts for two reasons. First, they are more likely to run for office in races where more than one candidate will emerge victorious. Second, voters seek gender balance when electing more than one representative. In a PR system, women can also threaten to create a women's party and therefore gain a voice in other parties. Ideological or religious minorities would also be more likely to achieve representation in a PR system.

Creating a True Democracy

When Republicans gained control of Congress in 1994, only one in four eligible voters voted for a winning representative due to low voter turnout and single-member districts. Most of the nation was left unrepresented by our 'representative democracy.' When Ross Perot achieved a total of 20% of the nationwide vote in 1992, he didn't finish first in a single Congressional district. Thus, even if Reform party candidates were as popular as Perot throughout the nation, none would have won a seat in Congress. In a country with PR like Germany, 3 out of 4 eligible voters vote for a winning representative; 19 out of 20 voters elected a representative in the last election and a high proportion of the eligible population went to the polls. Increased mobility and the ease of national communication have rendered geographic representation obsolete. It is time for a 'more perfect nation' and true democracy.