E-mail ArchivesJanuary 21, 1997 To: CV&D members, educators and electoral reformers From: Rob Richie, Executive Director The Center for Voting and Democracy * Proportional representation A new year is well underway, and yes, the rhetoric is heating up about a new century and a new millennium. Looking at electoral politics, here is a short explanation of why I and many others at the Center for Voting and Democracy believe that "proportional representation" is so important for reviving citizen participation, building community and moving us toward many of the other good things that President Bill Clinton called for today as he began his second term in office. The term "proportional" is one of those words that can hit you with a thud. But what it means is simply this: votes count. Groups of voters -- "groups" as defined by how they vote -- win their "fair share" of representation because most people gain the power to elect a representative. In a partisan election, a political party that wins 10% of the vote wins at least 10 out of 100 seats. A political party that wins 55% of the vote wins at least 55 seats. Depending on the "threshold of representation" -- the percentage of the vote necessary to win a seat -- virtually all voters will have their votes count toward a representative with the power of a voice and a vote in a legislature. And they will cast their "effective" vote after considering viable choices from across the political spectrum. The principle behind proportional representation -- "PR" -- is similar to that of a town meeting: as many voices as possible deserve to be heard, and then a majority should decide policy. If you shut people out of the hall before you make decisions, your debate is diminished, your "majority" is artificial and your community is fractured. In the concrete reality of American democracy today, you also will let those who already hold elected positions structure your electoral "choices" through the manner of drawing their legislative district lines -- lines that put most would-be voters in one party strongholds. And you turn political debate into an all-too-often shallow charade targeted to a small group of "swing voters" rather than the more ideologically-grounded majority. There is no one system of proportional representation. Systems vary widely. Concerns people might have about the use of proportional representation in a particular nation easily can be addressed by mechanisms used in another country. Most true representative democracies use PR. Of the 37 democracies in the world with at least two million inhabitants and with a high rating ("1" or "2") from the human rights organization Freedom House, 31 use a form of PR for elections to their national legislature, and another two use a form of PR for at least some national elections. The hold-outs? The United Kingdom and former colonies Canada, Jamaica and the United States. (Some other British colonies with lower ratings from Freedom House use U.S.-style elections -- they include India, Pakistan and Bangladesh.) Let's turn to two recent elections that show the distortions of the electorate's views that usually come with winner- take-all voting systems. First, here are the Japanese results from its October 1996 elections. Japan elected 300 legislators from U.S.-style, one-seat districts, and added 200 seats elected from party lists allocated by proportional representation according to the party vote. Voters cast one vote for their district representative and one vote for party list representatives. Results were tallied separately unlike in some "mixed member" systems. The results show that the Liberal Democrat Party -- the party that has run Japan for virtually the entire post- World War II period -- won less than one in three votes cast in the party list vote. But the party won close to three in five of the district seats and ended up with 48% of all seats, just shy of a majority. Even the generally-poor coverage of the Japanese elections in the U.S. media -- any straightforward explanation of different electoral systems is beyond the ability of most American reporters -- has supported the view that Japan is probably better off with the LDP not winning a majority of seats, that it now will be more responsive. But if only U.S.-style districts had been used, the LDP probably would have won a very comfortable majority. List List Dist. Dist. LDP 32.8% 35.9% 38.6% 56.5% 48.2% (239) Now, here are the results from the New Zealand elections, in October 1996. New Zealand also used a mixed system, but one that was fully proportional -- the system neatly combines guaranteed geographic representation with fairer representation of voters. Voters again cast two votes, but unlike in Japan, the party list seats were used to provide overall "proportional" representation. In the chart showing results, the actual number of seats follows the percentage. Note that the National party -- which had won an absolute majority of seats with 35% of the vote in New Zealand's final U.S.-style winner- take-all election in 1993 -- won nearly a majority (46%) of the districts seats with only 34% of the party vote this year, but won only its fair share of 37% of the overall seats. (The slight inflation of votes-to-seats for all parties was due to the fact that 7% of voters cast votes for parties that did not earn enough votes for representation.) Voter turnout was approximately 80% of the voting-age population, up from the past election. Women won over 45% of party list seats, but only 15% of district seats. Racial minorities -- the indigenous Maori, Polynesian Islanders and Asians -- all increased their share of representation dramatically. In the end, the National Party continued to govern, but now in coalition with the New Zealand First Party, a party whose main base of support was the Maori. PARTY District List List Total National 46.1%, 30 34.1% 14 36.7%, 44 Note that five of the district seats won by the New Zealand First Party were in the five separately-elected Maori electorates (New Zealand has a history of allowing Maori who choose to do so to vote in a separate election for these seats). Thus, only four seats out of 60 (7%) in the non-Maori districts went to the smaller parties despite the fact that these parties received a total of 38% of the party list vote. Note also that more parties won district seats (6) than won list seats (5), which also was true of Italy's 1996 mixed member election. * * * I hope that the above results helped make proportional representation clearer. Updates in the future will clarify questions, highlight recent developments and touch on such important past developments as the successful campaign for PR in New Zealand, where reformers won a 1993 victory in a national referendum despite being out-spent over 10-to-1. The following commentary discusses another important area of electoral reform: "one-winner" elections like those for executive offices such as president and governor. When only one person wins, you obviously cannot have a "proportional" result. Nevertheless, you can have a more justly-decided winner and a more open voting process -- one in which "minor" candidates can participate and be supported much more freely than our current system that punishes support for such candidates. The "instant run-off" -- also called the "alternative vote" and "majority preference voting" -- is one such system. Versions of this commentary appeared in two major Texas papers after congressional run-off elections took place in that state in December 1996. Let's Use an "Instant Run-off" The 1996 congressional elections finally ended this week with three run-off elections in Texas. The new winners now head to Washington after garnering tens of thousands of votes fewer than the votes they received on November 5. In the most extreme example, Houston's Kevin Brady defeated Gene Fontenot with fifty thousand fewer votes than he won in November. The only U.S. House race now in dispute is Loretta Sanchez' victory over Orange County Republican Bob Dornan. Dornan is disputing his narrow defeat, but his argument does not include asking who the second choices were of the nearly 10,000 supporters of third party candidates. Sanchez is one of several "plurality" winners -- where a candidate wins despite the opposition of a majority of voters -- in key races around the country, including Bill Clinton's presidential win. Sometimes our traditional practices become so irrational that the need for reform cannot be ignored. Plurality elections and current methods of conducting run-off elections are classic examples. Plurality elections clearly violate majority rule, but run-off elections fail as well. By limiting the field to two candidates, run-offs are supposed to ensure that a candidate gains majority support. But precipitous drops in turnout are the norm in run-offs held after a general election, while run-offs held in state primaries -- as in many local elections in California -- often result in winners avoiding run-offs despite very low turnout. Either way, the concept of "majority support" loses all meaning. Fortunately, there is a way to ensure majority winners at the election where voter turnout is maximized. Many expect the United Kingdom in the next few years to join Australia and Ireland in adopting a sensible system that can best be described as "the instant run-off." Here's how the instant run-off (IRO) works. With the IRO voters rank candidates in order of preference rather than just vote for one. The ballot-counting essentially operates as a series of run-off elections, with a winner needing to gain a majority (over 50%) of ballots cast. If no candidate wins a majority of first choices, then the last place candidate is eliminated. The ballot of a voter who ranked that candidate first then is redistributed to the next choice candidate on the ballot. Last-place candidates are eliminated until there is a majority winner. In the end,, the IRO almost always will reveal a true majority winner at an election where voter turnout is maximized. As with any new idea, the instant run-off may seem complicated at first. But for voters, the system literally is as easy as "1, 2, 3." Instructively, the democracies with the highest voter participation in the world are Australia and Malta, both of which use such preferential ballots. Perfectly constitutional, IRO might demand changes in some counties' voting equipment, but the cost of such one-time changes would be quickly regained by not having to hold run- off elections. The IRO would be particularly sensible to use with vote-by-mail elections, which states like Oregon and Washington have shown boost turnout significantly while saving tax dollars. In addition to better realizing the goal of run-off elections, the instant run-off would liberate voters from current participation-deadening calculations. In many multiple- candidate races, voters have to narrow their choices based on which candidates have a realistic chance to win. The result is the familiar "evil of two lessers" that this year helped drive voter turnout below 50%. The IRO ends that calculation. If your favorite candidate doesn't have much chance to win, you still can register your support for that candidate, give him or her the best chance possible to win and, if they lose, have your ballot go to your "lesser of two evils" choice. Negative campaigning also would be undercut. With candidates knowing they probably will need the second choice votes of supporters of other candidates, vicious attacks on opponents will be discouraged. Finally, voters would better define their mandate. If, for example, Bill Clinton had won with the second choices of many Ross Perot supporters in 1992, he would have had a clearer understanding of his majority coalition. And it's just possible that George Bush instead would have won re-election. One acid test of a voting system in a democracy is whether it promotes rule by the majority. The instant run-off meets that acid test. Plurality elections and current methods of run-off elections fail. It's high time for a change. E-News Index |