Iraqi Parliamentary Elections Use Proportional Voting System

Reforms Increase Turnout, Minority Inclusion

Cambridge, MA Choice Voting Elections Once Again Provide Fair Racial Representation and Voter Choice

Choice voting has been in use for City Council and School Committee elections in Cambridge, Massachusetts since 1941. The city's proportional voting system has consistently provided the city's African American population with fair representation on the council, while encouraging a diversity of political perspectives. This November, the Cambridge Election Commission conducted yet another successful election using this fair and effective electoral system, and both African American councilors were re-elected in a city where that population makes up only 12% of the population. Notably, the ranked ballot feature of choice voting allowed the two African American candidates to win on the 11th and final round of counting with the crossover support of other defeated candidates. Additionally, the electoral system made many of the races competitive, insofar as one of the incumbents was defeated and after nine rounds of elimination, only four of the nine candidates were elected. The remaining five seats were filled with the support of the defeated candidates' voters in the last two rounds of counting. Nevertheless, the council is still a stable body, with eight of its nine members returning in the next session. Similar results occurred for the School Committee, where the African American incumbent was re-elected in the fifth round, and two of six incumbents were defeated.

While this November's elections nationwide also witnessed the sputtering of the independent redistricting reform movement in states where it was on the ballot, voters and reformers alike are still interested in achieving better elections. As a result, the time has come to entertain the use of  proportional voting systems like choice voting throughout the nation. Cambridge's history with the system demonstrates that fair representation, competition, voter choice, and cooperative politics do not have to be mutually exclusive.

[ FairVote's Cambridge 2005 - Choice Voting Page ] NEW!

With the Failure of Redistricting Initiatives, Where Do We Go From Here?

This November, voters in California and Ohio soundly rejected ballot measures calling for independent redistricting processes to be created for each state's Congressional and state legislative line-drawing processes. The failure of these efforts does not indicate voters dislike reform, but it shows voters can be suspicious of plans that promise more than they can achieve, as well as apparent partisan motivations intrinsic to any mid-decade, state-by-state redistricting initiative.

With voters still seeking public interest elections, the time has come for an honest dialogue about the actual effects of redistricting. Additionally, the dialogue must be expanded to give line-drawing bodies more tools and options, such as multimember districts and proportional voting systems. In the least, we can do something unheard of in political circles: let the citizens decide. States should look to create citizens assemblies to study and recommend electoral changes, as British Columbia recently did with much success. In the meantime, Congress should embrace national efforts to reform redistricting, and in doing so avoid the state-by-state partisan calculations that the failed initiatives created.

[ FairVote Staff Blogs on Redistricting ]
[ Rob Richie's Op. Ed. on Redistricting ]
[ FairVote's Redistricting Reform Watch ]
[ Heather Gerken on a Citizens Assembly ]
[ Steven Hill Calls for a Citizens Assembly ]
[ Federal Redistricting Legislation ]