Democrats should lead on electoral reform
Red vs. Blue America leads to paucity of viewpoints, benefits
conservatives
By Steven Hill and Rob Richie
March 15, 2004
Having all but wrapped up his party's nomination, John
Kerry and his fellow Democrats now turn to the challenge of
defeating Republican incumbent George W. Bush. Before we
leave the primary season behind, we should reflect on what
worked for Democrats in the primaries because it holds the
key to Democrats' hopes for retaking the Congress.
Every four years the Democratic Party's presidential
primary showcases three desirable qualities that usually are
missing from our elections: proportionality, competition,
and a diversity of views.
Proportionality. All Democratic primaries are conducted
using "full representation" (a.k.a.
"proportional representation"). That means
candidates receive a proportional share of each state's
convention delegates matching their percentage of the
popular vote (but only if they receive at least 15% of the
vote in a congressional district). For instance, when Kerry
finished first in Tennessee with 41% of the vote, he won
about 41% of convention delegates, not all. John Edward with
27% and Wesley Clark with 23% also won their fair share. If
the typical "winner-take-all" approach had been
used, Kerry would have won all of Tennessee's delegates.
Competition. Without proportionality, Kerry would have
wrapped up the nomination even earlier because he finished
first in most primaries. The excitement and debate fostered
and sustained by competition would have been seriously
dampened -- less voter mobilization, less media attention.
Diversity of views. In sharp contrast to most of our
elections that feature landslide results and cagey
candidates muddying their positions and playing to swing
voters, the proportional method used in the Democratic
primaries produced a range of views that showcased real
diversity of opinion -- all of which contributed to making a
stronger case against George Bush.
Compare the spirited nature of the Democratic primaries
to the problems that plague our typical legislative
elections: little competition, with most districts
gerrymandered into one-party fiefdoms; poor diversity of
views, with the US House of Representatives -- the
"People's House" -- showing a mere 14% women
representatives, fewer than 14% representatives of color,
and insignificant representation of third parties or
independents; and low voter turnout, often fewer than two
out of five eligible adult voters casting votes, with a
decided class tilt in favor of the rich and well-educated.
The reason our legislative elections have become so
moribund is directly attributable to our continued use of an
18th-century winner-take-all, single-seat district system.
Unlike the Democratic primaries, this electoral system does
not yield proportionality, competition or a diversity of
views. And it hurts Democrats -- particularly the
progressive majority within the party -- in competing
against Republicans.
For instance, when the legislative districts are
redistricted every decade, most seats are made safe for one
party or the other, depressing any motivation to mobilize
voters. Furthermore, whenever one party controls
redistricting, it typically rips off the other party. With
Republicans controlling redistricting in several of our
largest states, such partisan redistricting has contributed
greatly to the Democrats' minority status in the House. Tom
DeLay's recent backroom shenanigans in Texas alone may lead
to Republican gains of seven seats in 2004.
But it would be a mistake to think that if we stopped
redistricting abuses the Democrats problems will be solved.
Because the problem for the Democrats is much more
fundamental -- it is winner-take-all, single-seat districts
themselves.
Given the heavy concentration of the Democratic vote in
cities, a large majority of districts tilt toward
conservatives in a 50-50 nation. Even though Al Gore won
nationwide a half million more votes than George Bush in
2000, Bush beat Gore in 47 more congressional districts as
they are presently configured. That's up from a 19-seat edge
in 2000, showing how trends in partisan vote dispersion are
boosting Republicans. The winner-take-all system does not
necessarily yield proportionality -- and right now the edge
clearly allows Republicans and conservatives to win more
than their fair share of seats.
Bush also carried 30 of 50 states, showing progressive
Democrats' near impossible battle to win a majority in the
malapportioned Senate where each state, regardless of
population, has two US Senators. In short, in the current
climate of Red vs. Blue America, any "emerging
Democratic majority" as suggested by John Judis and Ruy
Teixeira must overcome an 18th-century winner-take-all
electoral system that puts urban-centered Democrats at a
decided disadvantage.
Not only are proportionality and competition missing from
our legislative elections, but so is a diversity of views.
Without full representation of the breadth of American
political opinion, expect continued tension between
Democrats hungry to regain power and activists working for
corporate accountability, environmental protection, racial
justice and pro-peace policies -- issues too rarely
articulated in a winner-take-all politics that has become so
mediated by polls, focus groups and the relentless chase for
swing voters.
Lacking proportionality, competition and a diversity of
views, Democrats and urban progressives have been losing
ground to Republicans. The solution for Democrats requires
much more than simply redistricting reforms. Democrats must
begin enacting various systems of "full
representation" to elect our legislatures, just as they
have been using for their presidential primaries. With full
representation, groupings of like-minded voters win seats in
proportion to their voting strength at the polls. If a
political party wins twenty percent of the popular vote in a
ten seat district, its candidates win two of ten seats,
instead of none; forty percent wins four seats, and sixty
percent wins six seats.
Full representation in American legislative elections
would result in proportionality so the Democrats win their
fair share of seats. It also would boost representation of
women, third parties and independents, as well as millions
of "orphaned" Democratic (and Republican) voters
currently residing in the wrong district or wrong state.
Half of our states are plagued by one-party representation,
resulting in unprecedented degrees of regional
balkanization.
Full representation also would boost racial and ethnic
diversity in our legislatures. Based on current populations,
particularly in the South, at least ten additional people of
color likely would be elected to the U.S. House. And as
"full representation" democracies like Sweden,
Germany, and even South Africa illustrate, full
representation would elect many more women to our
legislatures.
Full representation methods address our nation's problems
extremely well, and increased interest will come as our
18th-century winner-take-all system continues to break down.
If the Democrats focus on increasing proportionality,
competition, and a diversity of views in our legislatures
via full representation, they not only will help their party
but the rest of the nation as well.