Views » January 30, 2017
Voting Doesn’t Have To Be Winner-Take-All
To get people engaged in politics, we need an electoral system based on proportional representation.
While the majority would elect most of the seats, voters outside the majority could elect at least one representative who shares their interests—including every Latino voter in Texas, every Republican in Massachusetts and every Democrat in rural America.
Progressives suffered a terrible defeat in November 2016.
Thanks, in part, to a flawed candidate with a flawed campaign, all three branches of the federal government are in the hands of the far Right. At a state and local level, the Left has been consistently out-organized by school-privatizers, granny-starvers and water-poisoners. There can be no electoral substitute for the challenging work of organizing grassroots opposition to these reactionary ideologues. But reforming the mechanics of American elections is a necessary, albeit insufficient, element of a left resurgence.
Trump and the Republicans control the White House and Congress only because the demographic groups that lean Republican—the old, the white and the well-off (a shrinking minority of Americans)—vote at a much higher rate than those demographic groups that lean Democratic—the young, the nonwhite and the poor.
Nonvoters consistently give two reasons for not voting: They are “too busy” or “not interested.” The Pew Research Center reports that nonvoters are also more likely than voters to think “issues in D.C. don’t affect me” and “voting doesn’t change things,” beliefs that reflect their alienation from our nation’s political life.
One way to counteract such disaffection is to give people a chance to vote with enthusiasm, to believe that when they vote for a member of Congress, they will be helping elect someone who will represent their interests rather than those of corporate Democrats or right-wing Republicans. To make that happen, we must change our winner-take-all voting system, which is the foundation of our two-party system, and replace it with proportional representation.
On Nov. 8, 2016, Mainers took what could be a step in that direction when they voted 52 to 48 percent in support of a ballot measure that instituted a ranked choice voting (RCV) system for statewide and U.S. congressional races.
RCV is easy for voters: You rank the candidates in order of choice, knowing that your backups will only count if your first choice is in last place and defeated. That means more votes count and there are no more “spoilers.”
To that end, FairVote, a nonpartisan election reform group, has drafted the Fair Representation Act, which, if passed by Congress, would implement a system of proportional representation for all U.S. House races. It would replace our winner-take-all, single-winner congressional districts with fewer, multi-winner districts. In these new districts, three, four or five winners would be selected by RCV. While the majority would elect most of the seats, voters outside the majority could elect at least one representative who shares their interests—including every Latino voter in Texas, every Republican in Massachusetts and every Democrat in rural America.
Gerrymandered district lines would not determine who wins the election: Voters would.
“We’ve seen an explosion of people who want to build on what Maine did in adopting ranked choice voting,” says Rob Richie, the executive director of FairVote. “People are having big meetups and strategy sessions about next steps. I expect we’ll see new waves of local and state ballot measures and legislative action.”
Rep. Don Beyer (D-Va.) plans to introduce the Fair Representation Act in Congress. It’s a reform whose time has come.
Help Support Our Fall Fundraising Drive
Here’s a sobering fact: Over the past 20 years, journalism has lost jobs at a faster rate than the coal mining industry. Far too many excellent publications have disappeared completely.
But because of supporters like you, In These Times has been able to walk a different path. We are not managed by a corporate parent company, nor are we dependent on one benevolent philanthropist. Instead, we are supported by individual donations from you and thousands of other readers like you.
This is our promise to you: We’ll keep publishing as long as you keep supporting In These Times. Please, make a tax-deductible donation today to help keep In These Times going strong.
Joel Bleifuss, a former director of the Peace Studies Program at the University of Missouri-Columbia, is the editor & publisher of In These Times, where he has worked since October 1986.
if you like this, check out:
- Trump Gaslights Farmers on Trade War, But They’re Catching On
- The U.S. Betrayal of the Kurds Is Five Years in the Making
- Why the Argument that Medicare for All Will Curtail “Freedom” Is So, So Wrong
- Trump’s Betrayal of the Kurds Is Terrible, But the Answer Is Not Endless War
- How the DCCC’s “Blacklist” Could Blow Up in the Democratic Establishment’s Face