Disproportionality in a Two-Party System
Numerous studies of electoral systems have
demonstrated that single-member district, plurality elections are prone to high levels of
disproportionality between the distribution of votes among the parties and the party
allocation of seats in the legislature. This is important not only from the point of view
of fairness, but also because disproportionate electoral results discourage party
formation, voter turnout and issue-oriented campaigns. The result is an enfeebled
political culture characterized by low levels of participation, personality-centered
campaigns and under-representation of minority political positions.
1992 Elections for U.S. House of Representatives
In the 1992 elections for the U.S. House
of Representatives, there was very little difference between the vote shares of the two
major parties (3.4%), yet the difference in seat shares was 19.8%. If the electoral system
had allocated the seats in proportion to the vote shares of the parties, the Republicans
would have won 36 more seats. The average vote/seat difference of the two largest parties
(8.2%) was comparatively high for U.S. House elections: 63% higher than the average for
the decade of the eighties.
In the proportional representation (PR)
systems of Western Europe and Scandinavia, the corresponding figure is only one-fifth as
high. Yet this overall figure obscures even wider disparities in many states which
canceled one another out. In half of the states (see table, next page) the average
vote/seat difference was greater than 10%, and in eight states it was greater than 25%. In
ten states the votes of one party were completely wasted, winning no seats at all. The
Democrats won a seat percentage in excess of their percentage of the vote in two-thirds of
the states. Four states even saw manufactured majorities; e.g., the electoral system
awarded the majority of seats to a party which won only a minority of the vote.
Effects of Disproportionality
The effects of electoral
disproportionality on political participation are clear in terms of both party formation
and voter turnout. The number of electoral parties is depressed by the recognition that
votes for smaller parties are wasted. According to the standard method for calculating the
effective number of legislative parties (which adjusts the number according to the
relative equality of seat shares), the 1992 election allowed the representation of only
1.98 parties. The level of effective party formation is two-to-four times higher in the PR
countries.
Furthermore, because coming in second is
unrewarded in single-member district elections, the persuasive activities of the two major
parties are geared toward winning the allegiance of the middle of the political spectrum.
Having reduced their ideological differences, the parties compete by attacking each
other's candidates in terms of their personal characteristics. The appeals of smaller
parties are largely ignored since attitudes toward them are nearly inconsequential for
rational voting.
Faced with such limited choices and
distasteful campaigns, the electorate is not inclined to participate in the election. Even
though the turnout (55%) for the 1992 election was the highest since 1972, it was 30
percent lower than the average for proportional representation elections in Europe.
Of course, diminished party formation and
voter turnout mean under-representation. The under-represented parties are those who would
seriously consider basic changes in the social system, and research on the socio-economic
characteristics of non-voters suggests that progressive labor and minority-oriented
parties would be the main beneficiaries of increased voter turnout. There could be some
truth in Noam Chomsky's assertion that Americans are actually more dissident today than in
the late 1960's, but our institutions won't allow us to express it freely.
Stephen Winn is a professor of
sociology at Marshall University. His recent work includes a sociological analysis of the
transfer of ballots in preference voting elections in the United States.
Contested Seats |
% Democratic Seats |
Vote | |
---|---|---|---|
NEW ENGLAND |
|||
Connecticut | 6 | 50.0 | 47.6 |
Maine | 2 | 50.0 | 54.0 |
Massachusetts | 10 | 80.0 | 61.9 |
New Hampshire | 2 | 50.0 | 54.0 |
Rhode Island | 2 | 50.0 | 50.9 |
Vermont | 1 | 00.0 | 8.2 |
Total | 23 | 60.9 | 53.6 |
MIDDLE ATLANTIC |
|||
Delaware | 1 | 00.0 | 43.4 |
Maryland | 8 | 50.0 | 53.5 |
New Jersey | 13 | 53.9 | 47.0 |
New York | 31 | 58.1 | 52.7 |
Pennsylvania | 17 | 58.8 | 52.2 |
West Virginia | 2 | 100 | 68.6 |
Total | 72 | 56.9 | 51.8 |
EAST CENTRAL |
|||
Illinois | 20 | 60.0 | 55.6 |
Indiana | 10 | 70.0 | 54.7 |
Michigan | 16 | 62.5 | 48.7 |
Ohio | 19 | 52.6 | 50.9 |
Total | 65 | 60.0 | 52.3 |
WEST CENTRAL |
|||
Iowa | 4 | 25.0 | 48.0 |
Kansas | 4 | 50.0 | 45.2 |
Minnesota | 8 | 75.0 | 54.4 |
Missouri | 9 | 66.7 | 54.9 |
Nebraska | 3 | 33.3 | 39.9 |
North Dakota | 1 | 100 | 59.0 |
South Dakota | 1 | 100 | 71.2 |
Wisconsin | 9 | 44.4 | 48.8 |
Total | 39 | 56.4 | 51.3 |
Contested Seats |
% Democratic Seats |
Vote | |
---|---|---|---|
MOUNTAIN | |||
Arizona | 6 | 50.0 | 43.0 |
Colorado | 6 | 33.3 | 47.8 |
Idaho | 2 | 50.0 | 47.9 |
Montana | 1 | 100 | 50.4 |
Nevada | 2 | 50.0 | 50.3 |
New Mexico | 3 | 33.3 | 49.0 |
Utah | 3 | 66.7 | 46.7 |
Wyoming | 1 | 00.0 | 39.3 |
Total | 24 | 45.8 | 41.0 |
PACIFIC | |||
California | 52 | 59.6 | 52.8 |
Oregon | 5 | 80.0 | 60.8 |
Washington | 9 | 88.9 | 57.6 |
Total | 66 | 65.2 | 54.2 |
SOUTH | |||
Alabama | 7 | 57.1 | 58.2 |
Arkansas | 4 | 50.0 | 58.9 |
Florida | 22 | 45.5 | 45.4 |
Georgia | 11 | 63.6 | 55.0 |
Kentucky | 6 | 66.7 | 53.1 |
Louisiana | 1 | 00.0 | 37.0 |
Mississippi | 5 | 100 | 70.5 |
North Carolina | 12 | 66.7 | 51.6 |
Oklahoma | 6 | 83.3 | 59.9 |
South Carolina | 6 | 50.0 | 45.7 |
Tennessee | 9 | 66.7 | 53.6 |
Texas | 27 | 70.4 | 50.2 |
Virginia | 11 | 63.6 | 49.2 |
Total | 127 | 63.0 | 51.9 |
OTHER | |||
Alaska | 1 | 00.0 | 43.5 |
Hawaii | 2 | 100 | 72.3 |
TOTAL U.S. | 419 | 60.1 | 51.7 |
* Calculated from Congressional
Quarterly
11/7/92, "Election '92 Results"