Southern Changes
Alternative Voting Systems
Explained
Winning Fair Representation with
Alternative Voting Systems
By Rob Richie Winter
2000
Experts
suggest that some 95 percent of black representation in the next
decade will be won or lost in the upcoming redistricting. Without
substantial numbers of black voters in districts, very few black
candidates will win; the U.S. Senate is the most notorious example
of the negative impact of racial block voting�with its lack of black
or Latino members a direct consequence of no state having a black or
Latino majority.
Dependence
on redistricting to provide representation to black people and other
communities of color is based on three factors: white voters'
general preference for white candidates; the fact that people of
color are in the minority in most areas; and the general use in the
United States of "winner-take-all" methods of voting in which a 50.1
percent majority in a given constituency wins all representation in
its area.
Policy
makers have few short-term means to end racism, but through
redistricting they have the power to turn blacks into majorities in
certain electoral districts. They also have the power to address the
third barrier to fair representation: winner-take-all elections.
Systems that provide more complete representation of the electorate
can allow more racial minorities to elect candidates. In such
"proportional" systems, like-minded groupings of voters can pool
their votes from across a constituency to elect candidates in
accordance with their voting strength. A 50.1 percent electoral
majority remains well-positioned to win the majority of seats, but
it cannot shut out a substantial political minority. With
proportional systems, many voters gain new power to elect the
representation for which they currently are deprived due to their
minority status in their area. As American society grows
increasingly diverse and communities of interest increasingly
develop along non-geographic lines, proportional voting systems are
drawing even more attention. Freeing more voters to define their
representation with their votes has fundamental appeal.
It also
works. When Cincinnati used a proportional system to elect its
nine-member city council from 1925 to 1955, a cohesive grouping of
voters comprising 10 percent of the electorate could elect a seat.
At least one black candidate consistently was elected despite blacks
making up well under 20 percent of the population, and both major
parties pursued the black vote in efforts to control the council. In
Peoria, Illinois, where blacks are a fifth of the population, black
candidates have won one of five citywide seats since a proportional
plan was adopted before the 1991 elections.
The most
dramatic recent example of the impact of proportional voting comes
from Texas. In May 2000, the Amarillo Independent School District
for the first time used a proportional system called cumulative
voting to elect seats to its school board. Blacks and Latinos in
Amarillo together comprise nearly a quarter of the city's
population, but no black or Latino candidate had won a seat on the
school board in decades. Instituted to settle a voting rights
lawsuit involving the Mexican American Legal Defense and Education
Fund (MALDEF), the League of
United Latin American Citizens (LULAC), and the NAACP, cumulative voting had an
immediate impact. Both a black candidate and Latino candidate won
seats with strong support in their respective 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.
Cumulative
voting and limited voting also have been used in nearly two dozen
Alabama localities for a decade in the wake of a sweeping decision
in a voting rights case. Analyses of these Alabama elections
demonstrate that they have boosted turnout and increased black
representation as much as likely would have occurred with single
member districts.
Cumulative
voting was first introduced to many Americans in 1993 during the
controversy over cumulative voting advocate Lani Guinier's
nomination to head the civil rights division of the Department of
Justice. That a generally conservative city like Amarillo would
settle a voting rights case with cumulative voting is only one
example of how proportional systems�specifically, cumulative voting,
choice voting, and limited voting, which are based on voting for
candidates rather than party-based systems as used in South Africa
and most European nations--have evolved to be credible alternatives
for empowerment.
In 1995,
then-Texas Governor George W. Bush signed legislation to allow
school districts to adopt cumulative voting and limited voting, and
more than fifty Texas jurisdictions have settled voting rights cases
with cumulative voting.
Other
recent examples of how proportional systems are gaining attention
include:
* In 1999, North
Carolina Congressman Melvin Watt introduced the States' Choice of
Voting Systems Act (HR 1173) to remove a 1967 requirement that
states use single-member districts for U.S. House elections. Those
testifying in favor of the bill at a hearing included the Department
of Justice and Republican Congressman Tom Campbell.
* In 1998,
Judge David Coar ordered Chicago Heights, Illinois, to adopt
cumulative voting to assist black and Latino voters in elections to
the city council and park board. Cumulative voting was used for more
than a century to elect the state's House of Representatives, where
black legislators had early and significant electoral successes;
among those backing its return include Senate minority leader Emil
Jones, former governor Jim Edgar, and U.S. Representative Jesse
Jackson, Jr.
* As of
2000, the Department of Justice (DOJ) has ultimately pre-cleared
proportional plans in states covered by Section 5 of the Voting
Rights Act in every jurisdiction seeking to institute one. In 1999,
the DOJ backed Judge Coar's order of cumulative voting in Chicago
Heights and denied pre-clearance to New York City's plan to replace
choice voting for local school board elections; choice voting had
elected a significantly higher percentage of racial minorities to
school boards than have been elected in the city's other legislative
bodies.
* A
National Black Caucus of State Legislators task force in 1998 found
strong interest among black legislators in seeing how proportional
systems might assist negotiations in redistricting. The National
Conference of Black Political Scientists endorsed proportional
systems in 1999, while the Southern Center for Studies in Public
Policy at Clark-Atlanta University is pursuing ambitious educational
outreach about proportional systems to black elected officials and
historically black colleges and universities. National and state
affiliates of US Public Interest Research Group (PIRG), Common Cause, National
Organization for Women (NOW), and
the League of Women Voters have
adopted positions in favor of proportional representation. In 2000
the League voted to pursue a national study of voting systems -- its
first national study in a decade.
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 practical, tested
approach to winning fair representation.
Rob Richie is
executive director of the Center for Voting and Democracy. For more
information about the Center and proportional systems, visit www.fairvote.org.
Resources on Proportional
Voting
There is a
growing and useful body of literature about proportional systems.
Books include: Behind the Ballot Box: A Citizen�s Guide to Voting
Systems by Douglas Amy (2000); A Right to Representation
by Kathleen Barber (2000); Reflecting All of Us by Rob
Richie, et. al. (1999); Tyranny of the Majority by Lani
Guinier (1994); and The International IDEA Handbook of Electoral
System Design by Andrew Reynolds and Ben Reilly (1997).
Recent
publications produced by the Center for Voting and Democracy and the
Southern Regional Council include Jerome Gray's �Winning Fair
Representation in At-Large Elections� and �Alternative Election
Systems Manual� (with the Southern Center for Studies in Public
Policy).
Noteworthy
books to be published in the near future include: Richard Engstrom
and Mark Rush�s Electoral Reform and Minority Voting Rights
(Rowman and Littlefield), and Beyond Representation: Experiments
with Alternative Electoral Systems, by Shaun Bowler, Todd
Donovan, and David Brockington (no publisher yet). For a
bibliography and more information, visit the website of the Center
for Voting and Democracy at: www.fairvote.org
Alternative
Voting Systems Explained
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 thirty voting
rights cases in Alabama and North Carolina since 1987. Technically,
limited voting is a semi-proportional system because there is less
guarantee of a near exact match between the voting preference of
like-minded voters and seats earned.
Example:
In a race to elect five candidates, voters might be limited to two
votes. Winning candidates are determined by a simple plurality;
victory goes to 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
school board, city council, and county commission elections in
Alabama, Illinois, New Mexico, South Dakota and Texas. Technically,
cumulative voting is a semi-proportional system because there is
less guarantee that of a near exact match between the voting
preference of like-minded voters and seats earned.
Example:
In a race to elect five candidates, voters can cast one vote for
five candidates, five votes for one candidate or a combination in
between. The five highest vote-getters win.
Choice
Voting
Also known
as �single transferable vote� and �preference voting,� choice voting
is the candidate-based proportional system most common 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 counted for those voters� next
choices. This device facilitates coalition-building and allows a
candidate to run without fear of being a �spoiler� who might split
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 percent 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. |