A Center for Voting and Democracy Factsheet
PROPORTIONAL VOTING SYSTEMS, CONGRESS AND 2001
Reasons to Amend the One-Seat District Requirement of 1967
As we approach the next redistricting
cycle in 2001-2002, it seems only prudent for states -- particularly those covered by the
Voting Rights Act -- to investigate use of proportional representation (PR) and semi-PR
voting systems. PR systems would lower the costs of redistricting, reduce the likelihood
of litigation over district lines, promote fair representation for voters of all races,
increase representation of women and encourage voter participation. They should be a
serious option for legislative elections, from localities to state legislatures to the
House of Representatives in states electing more than one Member.
Congress in 1967 passed a statute (2 USCS
2c, n 2) that requires states to use one-seat U.S. House districts. However, there is a
long history of US states using multi-seat House districts, starting when most states used
multi-seat districts in the first congressional elections in 1790. Congress first required
one-seat districts in 1842 (to allow for more political diversity within states --
at-large elections allowed one party to win all seats), then dropped the requirement in
1852, restored it in 1862 and dropped it again in 1929.
Now, Rep. Cynthia McKinney has
introduced HR 3068, the Voters' Choice Act, to restore states' ability to use PR in
multi-seat districts. This modification of the 1967 law would be quite consistent with
its intent: a major reason for the statute was to protect racial minorities by eliminating
the possibility of states adopting winner-take-all, at-large elections as a reaction to
the Voting Rights Act.
Growing Support for Using PR for U.S. House Elections
"[With the choice voting method of PR] constituencies would choose their candidates,
rather than the other way around, as happens under the present districting schemes...
Before the plan could be used in a congressional race, it would be necessary to repeal a
1967 law requiring single-member districts -- a law enacted, incidentally, to protect the
rights of partisan minorities. [Choice voting] would do it better."
• William Raspberry in Washington Post, 7/7/95
"I am inclined to think that some form of proportional representation makes sense for
the House of Representatives, not just because of its disruptive effect on existing
interest-group relationships but because it would reduce or eliminate the flagrant racial
gerrymandering of the early 1990s."
• Kevin Phillips, in Arrogant Capital (1994).
"Experimenting with [PR] within state congressional delegations would not require a
constitutional amendment. An ordinary act of Congress followed by adoption by a state
would do the trick... North Carolina's dilemma ought to make us all take a new look at how
we vote."
• New Yorker lead editorial, 4/4/94
"It will take a waiver from Congress to make cumulative voting possible for
congressional elections in North Carolina or any other state. Congress should take the
hint and do it."
• Clarence Page in Chicago Tribune, 3/30/94 1994
"The nasty fact is that our winner-take-all election system, adopted from 18th
century England and unchanged, has the potential to leave up to 49.9% of the voters in any
district feeling unrepresented.... Rep. Cynthia McKinney, [has] called for repeal of the
federal law enacted only three decades ago that mandates single-member districts.... It's
time for some affirmative action for real democracy -- for all Americans."
• USA Today editorial "A Route to Fairer Voting," 6/39/95
"[The semi-PR system of cumulative voting] guaranteed the relative strengths of the
two parties would be reflected in the legislature, but every region of the state would
also have substantial representation in each party's caucus.... The intermeshing of
political and regional interests has all but disappeared in the 15 years since cumulative
voting was abolished.... [Cumulative voting] produced some of the best and brightest in
Illinois politics. It's time for a debate about a possible revival.
• Chicago Tribune, 5/30/95 editorial,
"Better Politics from an Old Idea"
"This legislation [Voters' Choice Act] goes to the heart of an issue I feel very
strongly about. That is, that the people should make the decision not only on who
represents them, but on how they ought to choose their representatives
... This bill increases choice for states and for people."
• Paul Jacob, US Term Limits director, 10/26/95 statement