How women suffer under winner-take-all
Women comprise over 50% of the population of the United States but make up only about 14% of Congress.  As of 2005, there were 65/435 (14.9%) representatives and 14/100 (14.0%) senators.  These statistics represent a real problem.  Women in the United States have an extremely diluted presence in Congress.  Legislation is handed down that that directly affects their lives, careers and bodies, yet they have little influence on these laws.  Above and beyond traditional issues, female representatives have successfully addressed gender sensitive topics related to education and employment, domestic violence, and child support laws. They are supported by women’s political organizations that often focus around issues of reproduction, health care, civil rights and other important social issues. Despite all the advantages of having women representatives, the percentage of women in Congress plateaus below 15% and the refuses to increase.  Based on percentage of women in the upper and lower house, The Inter-Parliamentary Union ranked the United States 59th out of 121 countries in the world for representation of women. Countries ahead of the United States include Rwanda, Cuba, South Africa, Vietnam, Pakistan, China and Bosnia.

The winner-take-all election system is what prevents women from legislative upward mobility. Studies have shown that when women run for election, they are as likely to win as men, but winner-take-all can often prevent them from even being nominated. Under a system which protects incumbents, it is very difficult for women to find viable seats to stand for. Often parties will not run qualified women candidates because they believe it disadvantages them in the general election. When elections are in single-member districts, it is very difficult for the central party to exercise influence over the overall number of women standing for election. In this context, voters who prefer women candidates are forced to conform or “spoil” their vote.  In a closely divided election, voters will vote for whichever candidate is most likely to win; in most cases this means the male candidate. But there is a solution.  In the book "Reflecting All of Us: The Case for Proportional Representation," Harvard Law professor Lani Guinier writes: "What America needs is a system that disperses power more broadly. Ultimately, proportional and semi-proportional systems reflect ideas of cooperation and rotation-the importance of public access to power . . . It is about transforming how power itself is exercised and shared."  
Recent Articles
October 19th 2009
A better election system
Lowell Sun

Election expert Doug Amy explains how choice voting can "inject new blood" into the elections of Lowell (MA), and give voters a greater incentive to participate.

October 16th 2009
Haven't Detroit voters spoken enough?
Livingston Daily

In Detroit, there have been three mayors in the past two years and the current one has come under scrutiny. Perhaps a system like instant runoff voting will help bring political stability to motor city.

August 21st 2009
Black candidate for Euclid school board to test new voting system
Cleveland Plain Dealer

Limited voting, a form of proportional voting, will be used in Euclid (OH), in the hopes of allowing better representation of minorities.

July 2nd 2009
Reforming Albany
New York Times

FairVote's Rob Richie responds in a letter to the editor making the case for proportional voting systems to bring substantive reform to New York's legislature.