|
Poverty & Race
 New Means for Political Empowerment:
Proportional
Voting
-Proportional Voting in
Practice
-An Alternative to Majority-Minority
Districts
Proportional Voting
Systems
New Means for Political Empowerment:
Proportional Voting
by Douglas Amy, Frederick McBride, Robert
Richie
November/December 2000
In May 2000, the citizens of Amarillo, Texas,
filled four seats on its school board by cumulative voting. No black
or Latino candidate had been elected to Amarillo�s seven-member
school board in more than two decades, despite Latinos and
African-Americans making up more than 20% of the city�s population
and an even larger share of the student population. Instituted to
settle a voting rights lawsuit, cumulative voting had an immediate
impact: a black candidate and Latino candidate won seats with strong
support in their communities; voter turnout increased four times
over the most recent school board election; and all parties in the
voting rights settlement expressed satisfaction with the new
system.
That a generally conservative city like Amarillo
would adopt cumulative voting is only one example of how
proportional and semi-proportional voting systems in recent years
have moved from being �controversial� to credible alternatives for
political empowerment. On their own merits and as a strategic
response to Supreme Court rulings that hinder creation of district
boundaries to provide for increased representation of racial
minorities, these voting methods�specifically, choice voting,
cumulative voting and limited voting (see accompanying box)�are
increasingly recognized as a means to increase minority
representation in local, state and even federal elections.
Proportional representation (PR) creates new
avenues of political power for people of color and the poor, two
groups traditionally denied fair access to power in this country.
Despite making up a quarter of the U.S. population,
African-Americans and Latinos (as of 2000) hold less than 10 % of
the country�s elected offices and not a single governorship or U.S.
Senate seat. Imagine for a moment how different it would be if the
Senate had 25 African-Americans and Latinos instead of none. They
would make up an important voting bloc, and their very presence on
committees and as colleagues on the Senate floor would be a powerful
reminder of the political concerns of people of color. No longer
would it be easy to put these issues on the back-burner, as so often
happens today.
Adopting PR to elect the U.S. Senate would
require constitutional change, but all other legislative bodies in
the United States�including the House of Representatives�could be
elected by PR without touching the Constitution. What prevents such
fantasies of fair representation from more often becoming a reality
is our continued adherence to an election
principle�winner-take-all�that is inherently unjust and
undemocratic. Winner-take-all elections, whether in single-member
districts or for at-large positions, require winning candidates to
attract a majority or substantial plurality of the vote. By
definition, candidates representing political minorities have great
difficulty amassing this large a share of votes, and so stand little
chance of being elected. Thus, under our current system, racial
minorities and the poor have the right to vote, but are often denied
the equally fundamental right to representation. This systematic
disempowerment of minorities and the poor is an inevitable result of
winner-take-all systems.
Proportional representation is designed to remedy
these electoral injustices. It ensures that any grouping of
like-minded people�minorities and majorities�gets a fair share of
power and representation in our legislative bodies, whereas our
current winner-take-all principle can award 100 % of the
representation to a 50.1 % majority. If black voters comprise 20 %
of the vote in a racially polarized county, they can elect at least
one of the five seats�rather than be shut out, as they would be in a
traditional at-large election or in a single-member district plan
that dispersed their vote across several districts.
Versions of proportional representation are used
in most well-established democracies. In 1999, there were 36
democracies with a high Freedom House human rights rating and a
population over two million. Of these, only two�the U.S. and
Canada�used exclusively winner-take-all elections for national
elections; most used proportional representation for their most
powerful legislative body. In 1999, South Africa held its second
elections using proportional representation; once again, voter
turnout and voter respect for the outcome were high, all racial and
political groupings elected a fair share of seats, and women won
more than twice the share of seats held by women in the U.S.
Congress.
Various proportional and semi-proportional
systems exist in both partisan and non-partisan forms. More than 200
localities in the United States use one of three non-partisan
systems: cumulative voting, limited voting or choice voting. The
many forms of PR embody the same goals: (1) assuring that all
eligible voters have an effective vote; (2) assuring that as many
voters as possible have someone to represent them in policy-making
bodies; (3) enabling both majorities and minorities to have fair
representation, and (4) creating legislatures that truly represent
the wide diversity of the electorate�s political opinions and
interests. Not all PR elections achieve these goals, particularly
for very small groupings of voters, but they have a proven record of
achieving these goals more effectively than winner-take-all
systems.
Proportional representation allows for the
emergence of a pluralistic multi-party system that could include
parties speaking strongly for racial and ethnic minorities and
people of all incomes and across the political spectrum. If PR were
adopted in the U.S., the electoral prospects of lower-income
Americans likely would be improved by the first successful
organization of leftist or labor parties, as exist in virtually all
Western democracies with PR. Under winner-take-all rules, it is
essentially futile to organize such parties. A third party stands
little chance of electoral victory and in fact has the perverse
impact of helping the party its supporters most oppose by splitting
the vote of the established party it would otherwise support.
In a PR system, a labor party or other low-income
party could create a viable electoral presence without splitting the
vote. Knowing that each new vote could help gain more seats, a
low-income party would have more incentive to inform, cultivate and
mobilize its supporters. By creating a viable electoral presence,
the party would give low-income Americans a powerful, urgently
needed reason to vote. Data from the U.S. Census shows a direct
correlation between voter turnout and income that is only becoming
more pronounced. In the 1996 presidential race, under the current
system, voter turnout was only 44% among the 17 million American
citizens earning less than $15,000 a year, in stark contrast to the
76% turnout among the 23 million citizens earning more than $75,000.
Under PR, the poor would have much greater incentive to vote because
they would know that their votes would actually elect someone to
represent their interests.
Proportional
Voting in Practice
Texas provides a good example of the increasing
use of proportional voting systems. In addition to Amarillo, more
than 50 Texas jurisdictions adopted cumulative voting in the 1990s;
in 1995, then-Texas Governor George W. Bush signed legislation that
allows school districts to adopt cumulative voting and limited
voting.
� Cumulative voting and limited voting have been
used in nearly two dozen Alabama localities for a decade in the wake
of a sweeping win in a voting rights case. Studies of these Alabama
elections demonstrate that they have boosted turnout and increased
black representation as much as or more than would have occurred if
single-member districts had been used. In Chilton County, black
candidate Bobby Agee in 1988 led the field in the first elections
using cumulative voting for a seven-seat county commission, even
though blacks were barely 10% of the population and he was heavily
outspent. Most of his supporters, overwhelmingly black, took
advantage of their opportunity to allocate all seven of their votes
for him rather than spread their votes among other candidates. The
first black commissioner in Chilton County�s history, Agee has twice
been re-elected and has served as chair of the commission.
� Choice voting has been used for decades to
elect the city council in Cambridge, Massachusetts, and the local
school boards in New York City. These bodies have reflected the
diversity of the cities far better than other elected bodies in the
same cities. This was also typically true when choice voting was
used to elect city councils in New York City, Cincinnati and other
major cities before its Cold War-era repeal.
� Starting in 1995 with Congresswoman Cynthia
McKinney�s Voters� Choice Act, bills to allow states to use
proportional systems for U.S. House elections were introduced in
every session. North Carolina Congressman Melvin Watt�s 1999 States�
Choice of Voting Systems Act drew bipartisan support and was the
subject of a hearing; those testifying in favor of the bill and
proportional systems included the Department of Justice and
Republican Congressman Tom Campbell.
� Nearly 100 jurisdictions have adopted
proportional systems to settle voting rights challenges, and federal
judges several times have sought to impose them directly as remedies
in voting rights cases. Very familiar with redistricting as a result
of having presided over a challenge to Illinois� congressional
districts in which majority-minority districts were upheld, Federal
Judge David Coar in 1998 ordered the city of Chicago Heights to
adopt cumulative voting to elect its city council and park board.
Cumulative voting has a rich history in Illinois, being specifically
permitted in state law, used currently in Peoria and used for more
than a century to elect the state�s House of Representatives, during
which time representatives like Harold Washington and Carol
Moseley-Braun were elected.
�
The U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) has taken important positions
involving proportional systems. The DOJ has pre-cleared use of
cumulative voting and limited voting in numerous states covered by
Section Five of the Voting Rights Act; as of 2000, every
jurisdiction seeking to convert from a winner-take-all system to one
of these systems ultimately was permitted to do so. In 1999, the DOJ
wrote an amicus brief for the Chicago Heights case, backing Judge
Coar�s order of cumulative voting. Also in 1999, the DOJ denied
pre-clearance to New York City after the legislature voted to
replace choice voting (a fully proportional voting system) with
limited voting (a less proportional system) for electing the city�s
local school boards; choice voting had elected a significantly
higher percentage of racial minorities to school boards than had
been elected to other legislative bodies in the city.
� Significant organizations support education
about proportional voting methods. In 1998, a National Black Caucus
of State Legislators task force found strong interest among black
legislators in learning more about proportional and
semi-proportional systems, particularly in how they might assist
redistricting negotiations. The
League of United Latin American Citizens, National Association
for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP), and the Mexican American Legal Defense and
Educational Fund joined with local plaintiffs to win the
adoption of cumulative voting in Amarillo, the largest city now
using cumulative voting. The National Conference of
Black Political Scientists endorsed proportional systems in
1999. In 2000, the Southern Center for Studies in Public Policy
pursued ambitious educational outreach to black elected officials
and historically black colleges and universities, while the Southern
Regional Council produced a booklet on Alabama�s history with
proportional systems. National and state affiliates of US Public Interest Research Group,
Common Cause, the National Organization for Women and
the League of Women Voters adopted
positions in favor of proportional representation.
An Alternative to Majority-Minority
Districts
This rising interest in proportional
representation obviously is not occurring in a vacuum. Voting Rights
Act provisions on redistricting divided and preoccupied the Supreme
Court more than any other issue in the 1990s. The Court heard
arguments in cases involving voting rights and redistricting every
year in the wake of its 1993 Shaw v. Reno ruling, often
producing bitterly contested 5-4 decisions that had the general�if
poorly defined�impact of limiting states� use of race in drawing
legislative district lines.
Proportional representation can increase minority
representation without requiring the creation of �majority-minority
districts��districts where a racial minority is the majority.
Drawing such districts has been the most effective solution to
minority underrepresentation, but can have important drawbacks. For
example, majority-minority districts require the continuation of
some degree of housing segregation that concentrates minority
populations within easily drawn boundaries. Another problem is that
minority-dominated districts still deny representation to many
voters�even if candidates they might like can win in some districts,
many people will be left as �filler people� in a district in which
they are the minority. A third difficulty is that the process of
concentrating predominantly Democratic minorities into one district
can create surrounding districts that are more Republican, resulting
in the election of more conservatives who are less likely to support
the interests of minorities. Majority-minority districts are fairer
than the old white-dominated districts, but not always as good as
proportional representation.
Apart from legal battles over Shaw and
philosophical concerns, civil rights attorneys have discovered, in
states like Texas, Alabama, and North Carolina, that alternative
systems can simply be a good fit with local conditions. Perhaps a
minority community is more geographically dispersed than necessary
for a single-member district plan. Perhaps a jurisdiction may want
to avoid redistricting every decade. Perhaps there is frustration
that most voters in a minority community are still left out of a
chance to elect a candidate of choice even with a district plan that
provides for enhanced minority representation. Perhaps in a
multi-racial community, a citywide proportional plan is the easiest
way for different racial minorities to elect representation.
Local government is an obvious place for
stressing the utility of a proportional plan, as the mathematics of
what it takes to win representation are quite straightforward. But
higher election levels such as state legislatures are also now being
considered. As for Congress, it would take a version of
Representative Watt�s legislation to give states the sensible option
to consider some degree of proportional voting in seeking to fairly
represent our increasingly complex diversity.
The goal of proportional systems is simple:
providing means to allow fair and realistic opportunities for
citizens to elect individuals of their own choosing. While no
cure-all, they are a necessary step toward creation of a more
inclusive, responsive political system, and will finally give badly
needed representation to poor and minority Americans who have been
systematically denied access to power by our flawed winner-take-all
election rules.
[Douglas Amy ([email protected]) is a
professor at Mount Holyoke College of Politics. His latest book is
Behind the Ballot Box: A Citizen�s Guide to Voting and Democracy
(Praeger Publishing 2000). Robert Richie ([email protected])
founder and executive director of the Center for Voting and
Democracy (6930 Carroll Ave., #901, Takoma Park, MD 20912,
301/270-4616), a non-profit organization that researches and
distributes information on election reforms promoting voter
participation, accountable government and fair representation.]
Proportional Voting Systems
� Limited Voting
In limited voting, voters either cast fewer votes
than the number of seats or political parties nominate fewer
candidates than there are seats. The greater the difference between
the number of seats and the number for which one can vote, the
greater the opportunities for minority representation. Versions of
limited voting are used in Washington, D.C., Philadelphia, Hartford
and numerous other local jurisdictions. It has been adopted to
resolve at least 30 voting rights cases in Alabama and North
Carolina since 1987.
Example: In a race to elect five
candidates, voters might be limited to two votes. Winning candidates
are determined by a simple plurality: the five candidates with the
most votes.
� Cumulative Voting
In cumulative voting, voters cast as many votes
as there are seats to be elected. But unlike winner-take-all
systems, voters are not restricted to giving only one vote to a
candidate. Instead, they can cast multiple votes for one or more
candidates.
Cumulative voting was used to elect the Illinois
state legislature from 1870 to 1980. In recent years it has been
used to resolve voting rights cases for city council and county
commission elections in Alabama, Illinois and New Mexico and for
school board elections in Alabama, South Dakota and Texas.
Example: In a race to elect five
candidates, voters can cast one vote for five candidates, five votes
for one candidate or any combination in between. The five highest
vote-getters win.
� Choice voting
Also known as �single transferable vote� and
�preference voting,� choice voting is the most common
candidate-based proportional system used in other nations. Each
voter has one vote, but can rank candidates in order of choice (1,
2, 3, 4, etc.). Candidates win by reaching a �victory threshold�
roughly equal to the number of votes divided by the number of seats.
If a candidate has too little first-choice support to win, votes for
that candidate are transferred to those voters� next choices. This
transfer of votes facilitates coalition-building and allows a
candidate to run without fear of being a �spoiler� splitting the
vote.
Choice voting has been used for city council and
school board elections in Cambridge, Massachusetts, since 1941 and
is used for New York City local school board elections. Ireland and
Australia use choice voting for national elections. The city council
in Cambridge (where blacks are 13 % of the population) has had black
representatives since the 1950s. Choice voting in other cities,
including for five elections to the New York city council from 1937
to 1945, also resulted in fair racial, ethnic and partisan
representation.
Example: In a race to elect five
candidates, voters can rank in order of choice as many candidates as
they wish. Candidates win by gaining the support of about one-fifth
of the voters. A ballot counts towards the election of that voter�s
top-ranked candidate who needs that vote to
win. |
