In my last post I promised to talk about how we could to a point where we have more than two legitimate choices on a ballot, so here is the answer: a voting method known as proportional representation.

Unfortunately, the way our system is set up now in most places, with a single person winning an election when they get the most votes, third party candidates have no shot. This is because of the spoiler effect: when a third party candidate on one side of the political spectrum does well, it is often because he/she takes away votes from the main party candidate that he/she is most ideologically similar to. This can end up costing the candidate he/she is most similar to the election, and the third party challenger is stuck with the major party candidate he/she likes the least. This is arguably what happened with Ralph Nader and Al Gore in the 2000 presidential election, and with Ross Perot and George H.W. Bush in the 1992 presidential election.

The solution, at least for legislative races, is proportional representation, where voters elect multiple representatives at once, instead of just one. There are several different proportional representation systems, but the basic idea is that voters vote for a political party (or sometimes individuals), and the party’s share of the legislature should be about equal to the percentage of the vote it got. For example, if the state of Washington elected its nine members of the U.S. House of Representatives under this system, and Republicans, Democrats, a Main Street Party, and a Tea Party each got 22% of the vote, while a centrist party got 11% of the vote, the first four would each get two seats, while the latter would get 1 seat.

Proportional representation is not some radical new idea, it is actually the most commonly used election system in the world. The founding fathers never considered it simply because it was not around at the time.

Some countries do not allow voters to vote for the individual representatives that hold the seats that a party wins, but the U.S. would not, and should not, stand for this. If we ever see proportional representation in the U.S., voters should be able to vote for the party they like, and then the person within that party that they like the most.

Some countries that use proportional representation have voters vote for individuals, which may seem better suited to the U.S., where we are used to voting for individuals, but these systems are complicated, and are unlikely to catch on in a country as bad at math as the U.S., where people openly brag about their inability to do basic math. A simple system where voters vote for the party, then a person within that party, would be an easier sell.

The easiest way to set up a proportional representation system in the U.S. would be to have each state elect is representatives to the House through the system. For example, Washington state would elect all nine of its House members through the system simultaneously. For larger states like California, there would have to be several districts of around 10 Representatives, as having voters pick from a list of 53 candidates would be a bit much. Picking from a list of 10 candidates would not be too difficult.

Another benefit of proportional representation is that it typically increases voter turnout. This is because the system leads to more competitive races. In the vast majority of legislative races in America, the voters already know who is going to win. A Democrat is going to win in San Francisco, and a Republican is going to win a rural district in the South. In a proportional representation system, parties jockey with multiple competitors to win every last percentage point they can. Democrats in San Francisco would have to compete with a progressive party, and Republicans in rural southern districts would have to compete with a conservative party. This competition makes political races more interesting, and voters have a reason to turn out.

Voters in proportional representation systems are also typically happier with their government. This is for the same reason that consumers in capitalist countries are happier with their choices than consumers in the USSR were: competition. When there are only one or two choices available on the market, they are often not that good, as there is little competition pushing them to be better. However, when a product must compete with several other products, this forces the company making it to either put out a better product or fall behind. Similarly, if the two largest political parties in a proportional representation system do not represent you, you can vote for someone else.

Another added benefit of this system is that it typically elects more women and more minorities. This is simple math. If even a small number of people in an area discriminate against a woman in a plurality/majority system, it is difficult for her to get more votes than a male candidate when there is only one seat up for grabs. However, when there are multiple seats up for grabs, it is easier for women to get a few of them. If a particular party never nominates any woman, they get a reputation for being sexist. Similarly,  is easier for minorities to win elections when there are multiple seats on the line. If Asians make up 10% of a 10 seat district, and vote along ethnic lines, they can elect a representative. In a plurality/majority system, they would have no shot.

Elections under this system typically see less mudslinging in campaigns, and more of a focus on issues. The main reason we see so much mudslinging in the U.S. is because politics is a zero sum game. If a Democrat puts out a negative ad that prevents a conservative voter from voting for his opponent by abstaining from voting, that is a win for that Democrat. However, under a proportional representation system, that conservative voter would just vote for the Tea Party candidate if he did not like the Republican. This forces candidates to give voters reasons why they should vote for them, instead of against their opponents.

Critics of proportional representation will often point to Italy and Israel as reasons why the system is flawed. Both of those countries have so many parties in their legislature, that it is difficult to form a coalition and get anything done. However, both suffer from very low thresholds, meaning that a political party can get a seat in the legislature with around 1% of the vote. Countries that have higher thresholds of at least 5-10% fare much better. These countries typically have only 3-5 parties in their legislature, so it is easier to form a coalition and get things done.

Currently the only place in America that uses the system is Cambridge, Massachusetts. Since most Americans have never heard of the system, it is difficult to get any traction around the issue. However, if we are ever to have real choice on our ballots, we must have proportional representation. The best strategy would be for progressives, libertarians/tea party types, and which ever party is in the minority in a given area to team up and demand change. A San Francisco Republican is likely to be hesitant to the change, but there is not doubt that he would receive better (by which I mean at least some) representation under the system. People may have to hold their nose in the short term and vote for a candidate that they don’t agree with, but in the long term, the benefit would be true choice in elections.