Wikipedia

Proportional representation in the United States

(Redirected from US-PR)

Proportional representation (PR) in the United States refers to the multi-winner proportional electoral systems currently used in several cities and in the Democratic and Republican presidential primary processes.

On the left is a hypothetical distribution of 12 single-member United States House seats in four states (A-D). On the right is a theoretical distribution of seats in the same states using an ungerrymandered STV system with three members per district.

Cities began adopting PR in the 1910s during the Progressive Era. Historically, PR elected Black candidates in an era defined by Jim Crow laws. PR was gradually repealed in the mid 20th century largely due to backlash to racial and minority political party representation.

Since the 2010s, several electoral reform groups have advocated for the use of proportional representation to elect Congressmembers, instead of the current winner-take-all plurality system. PR advocates often see proportional electoral reform as a way to achieve more representation for women and African Americans in Congress, a way to depolarize the American political system, and a way to increase political participation and turnout. Opponents often claim ranked systems, such as STV, are unfair or confusing. The debate over whether to introduce PR, what form to introduce, and in which races is ongoing.

Background

edit

Definitions

edit

Proportional representation is achieved by any electoral system under which subgroups of an electorate are reflected proportionately in the elected body.[1] There are multiple systems for this. The main ones include:

PR systems vary in how voters choose who represents them. In some systems, people vote for parties, and in others, people vote for candidates. Currently, voters in all US elections vote for candidates, not parties.
  • Party-list: If a party wins 20% of the vote, it wins 20% of the seats. There are two main forms (open-list and closed-list) of party candidate nominations. Ranked-list proportional representation (RLPR), a party list system with ranked-choice voting (RCV) to determine party list order, has also been proposed in the US but has never been used.[2] Spare vote, considered but not adopted in Germany and New Zealand, could also be used for states with high thresholds.
  • Single transferable vote (STV): As a combination of RCV and PR, voters rank a number of candidates and multiple candidates are elected. Electoral thresholds are typically 1/(n+1) where n is the number of seats up for election (i.e. if there are 4 seats, the threshold would be 20%). Surplus votes are transferred to subsequent rankings. STV does not require political parties. In partisan elections, parties exercise varying control over nominations.
  • Mixed-member proportional (MMP): This system combines single-winner geographic districts with at-large "compensatory" seats added to make the seat count proportional to the vote count. MMP retains single-member districts, SMDs, (unlike party-list and STV) but allows for PR in the overall body. MMP's SMDs could use ranked-choice voting but not STV (which requires multiple winners).

The presidential primary nomination process is most similar to party-list, and all cities that have enacted PR have used single transferable vote. MMP has not been used in the United States, but it is occasionally suggested by PR activists.

MMP's compensatory seats may be unconstitutional at the federal level due to a requirement in Article I Section 2 of the US Constitution that congressmembers must be elected by states.[2] Other forms of PR likely would be constitutional and would only require a bill in Congress.[3]

Electoral structure

edit

Multiple states ban ranked-choice voting for local elections,[4] which prevents the use of single transferable vote (STV), but not necessarily party-list or MMP systems. Municipalities' ability to alter electoral systems depends on home rule laws.[5] In Minnesota, cities are either statutory or charter cities, and only charter cities are currently able to implement any ranked-choice voting systems.[6]

Many cities in the United States use block voting, which allows a voter to cast one vote per open seat. Since block voting is a FPTP election and not proportional (as in party-list on the right), it typically elects a landslide slate of candidates.[7]

United States House of Representatives seats are elected by plurality vote (the candidate receiving the most votes wins). House seats in Maine and Alaska use ranked-choice voting (RCV) instead of plurality voting.[8] Since the late 1960s, all House congressional districts have been single-member districts due to the Uniform Congressional District Act (UCDA).[9] The current first-past-the-post (FPTP) system does not require a proportional number of seats in relation to votes, and seat allocation may vary widely from votes cast.[10]

Since 1913, after the ratification of the 17th Amendment, US senators have been elected by plurality vote in at-large, statewide elections.[11] Some states use runoffs[12] or RCV[8] instead to elect senators by a majority instead of a plurality. According to a 1992 DOJ memorandum opinion, Senate races must be at-large and may not be broken into two single-member district races.[13]

The president of the United States cannot be elected directly via proportional representation, since the seat is inherently single-winner. In parliamentary systems, the legislature, which may be proportionally elected, chooses the prime minister. The United States is a presidential system with a separation of the legislature and executive. Many Latin American countries elect their legislatures through party-list proportional representation[14] and hold a direct popular vote for president, such as Peru, Chile, and Costa Rica.

History

edit
Thomas Jefferson invented the D'Hondt method, which is a common method for determining seat remainders in PR systems today.

When the United States Constitution was written, modern PR had not been invented (STV was invented in 1819[15] and first used in 1856[16]). According to Robert Dahl in How Democratic Is the American Constitution?, winner-take-all was the "only system [the founders] knew."[17] Thomas Jefferson invented a formula for apportioning seats in 1792 (D'Hondt method), now widely used in PR seat calculations, but it was used for House apportionment, not for party proportional representation.[18]

The earliest known essay for proportional representation in the United States was written in 1844 by printmaker Thomas Gilpin and dedicated to the American Philosophical Society. The article argued for "minority representation"[a] in Philadelphia elections in a manner that resembles contemporary party-list systems. Gilpin suggested a Native American party could form under PR as a part of a larger coalition.[19][20]

In 1867, Simon Sterne presented a proportional representation system to elect members of the New York state legislature during the state's constitutional convention on behalf of the Personal Representation[b] Society of New York. His proposed system would have used a unique "proxy" system with flexible number of legislators and disproportionate voting power among representatives. His proposals were not adopted.[21][22]

Progressive era

edit

The Progressive movement of the early 20th century advocated for a variety of electoral reforms, including proportional representation.

Populist former-Senator William A. Peffer described proportional representation as a "tenet of the People's party creed" in the Advocate in 1897.[23] In the 1898 Populist convention in Topeka, the adopted platform stated, "We demand that the initiative and referendum be embodied in our state constitution and favor proportional representation."[24][25]

Above is the share of seats after 1904 United States House of Representatives elections. Republicans won 251 seats (65% of total) despite winning 54.58% of the vote.
John R Commons argued in Proportional Representation that the seat results would be much different if the seats were allocated proportionally.[10]

Famous reformers such as John R. Commons advocated for proportional representation to undermine gerrymandering and to elect Black politicians.[26]

Proportional representation cannot be secured where but one candidate is elected in a district. He is the representative of the majority and not of all. The single-membered district system, which is almost universal in the election of representatives, is an historical accident, and not a rational device for representation or modern lines. In feudal and colonial times, when it was adopted, it happened that each organized interest lived by itself in a given territory. Each guild of handworkers had its own ward in the town, and therefore the alderman of the shoe-makers happened to be the alderman of the shoe-makers’ ward. Suffrage was limited to those who belonged to the guild. Also the farmers were only farm owners and not farm laborers. Now, when suffrage is universal, ward and district lines have lost their meaning.

— John R. Commons, Proportional Representation (1902)

Pivot to cities

edit
Comic depicting the single-member-district plan (amendment 17) as the "perch" of the gas, alcohol, and railway industries[27]

In 1913, an initiative to elect representatives via open party-list proportional representation in Los Angeles failed, receiving 48.2% of the vote.[28] The campaign was marked with infighting between socialists who wanted to expand their representation and progressive Republicans who wanted to undermine party influence.[29][28] A chunk of the progressives were also hesitant to ally with anti-capitalists after a bitter election two years prior.[30]

The Proportional Representation League advocated for the use of single transferable vote, a ranked-choice, proportional vote system, in cities in the 1890s[31] and the early 20th century.[32] The league preferred at-large proportional representation as opposed to district models.[33] In 1932, the Proportional Representation League merged into the National Municipal League, now known as the National Civic League.[34] The National Municipal League endorsed a move toward the city manager plan and STV in 1914.[35] In Ashtabula, the transition to a city manager plan and PR were seen to go together, as there was concern that a plurality voting system would result in only one party appointing the city manager.[36]

According to Jack Santucci, a Georgetown University professor, when city charter reform occurred, most cities chose plurality at-large (block voting), but cities that chose STV instead had intraparty factions (who wanted to weaken party nominations) that allied with minority parties to pass PR.[7]

During the 1925 Cincinnati City Council election, vote tallies were tabulated on a large blackboard. Spreadsheet software had not yet been invented and computers were not involved in election tabulations.[37]

Between 1915 and 1962, 22 cities used STV, including Cincinnati, Sacramento, and most notably New York City.[38] The first city to use PR the US was Ashtabula, Ohio in 1915 via referendum.

Progressives in LA were set to vote for their preferred system, STV, in 1922, but the Supreme Court of California struck down Sacramento's STV system days before the election.[30]

Kalamazoo, Michigan used PR for two elections before the Michigan Supreme Court overturned the system.[33]

Before ranked-choice voting software, second choice tabulation had to be done by hand. This newspaper illustration depicts STV tabulation in Cincinnati Music Hall for the 1925 City Council election.[37]

In Cincinnati, the City Charter Committee was formed to pass a citywide ballot initiative to institute PR without Republican machine support.[39] Cincinnati's 1925 City Council election had a threshold of 10% of the vote (including after transfers) for a candidate to be elected to one of the nine seats. This required a candidate to receive 11,974 votes.[37] Candidates who were endorsed by the two main factions (Republicans and the Charter) won their races in 1927. The Republicans performed best in the 1929 election after endorsing nine candidates for the city council.[39]

In January 1929, Representative Victor L. Berger introduced a bill to elect the US House of Representatives by proportional representation.[40][41] The bill did not pass, and Berger died in August the same year in a trolley accident.[42]

Results of the 1939 New York City council election by borough using STV.[43]

In the wake of the Walker scandal, Fiorello La Guardia advocated for a successful referendum to replace gerrymandered districts with STV.[44] New York City's first election using PR was in 1937. The city used a quota system, wherein each borough was entitled to one councilmember for every 75,000 votes cast (plus one more for a remainder of 50,000 or more).[45] Ballot guides were widely distributed during the election, and the system was credited for making it easier to prevent vote tampering and a having a higher percentage of votes going to elect a candidate than the previous single-member district system.[46]

Decline in 1940s-1960s

edit
History of adoption and repeals of PR from 1915-1960s

Proportional representation fell out of favor and began to be repealed after racial and political minorities began to win seats.[32] Initially, most repeals came from court challenges or state repeals without input from local voters.[47] Fear of Black mayors and councilmembers, as well as the Second Red Scare, led to successful referendums against PR.[48]

In his book More Parties or No Parties, Jack Santucci argues STV struggled with vote leakage (voters ranking very different parties close to each other) and was more susceptible to repeal than party-list systems. Reformers in the 1910s had strong anti-party sentiment that conflicted with party-list systems,[49] and the media branded party-list as "socialist," particularly during the failed 1913 Los Angeles charter campaign.[29]

Cambridge has consistently used proportional representation since 1941—the only city from the era to do so.[50][51][48]

Attempted Electoral College reforms

edit

Article Two of the Constitution states "Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors...", which has generally been taken to mean that changes to the way states allocate electoral votes (EVs) would have to be passed by states (via legislatures or initiatives) or by a constitutional amendment.[52] According to McPherson v. Blacker, states have plenary power in selecting the method of appointing electors.

If Humphrey's method were applied to the 1956 election, it would have given Stevenson 130 more EVs (204 total), resulting in him receiving 38% of the total.
Since the Lodge-Gosset method did not award 2 EVs for statewide winners, smaller states (such as the Dakotas) would allocate more votes for non-statewide winners.
The Lodge-Gosset method would have given Stevenson in 1956 a total of 230 EVs (43% of the total), resulting in a closer match to his share of the popular vote (42%).

The Lodge-Gosset amendment was a proposed constitutional amendment that passed the Senate in 1950 that would have retained the Electoral College but require each state to allocate its electoral votes proportionally. To be elected, a presidential candidate would need to win at least 40% of the total EVs.[53] Louis Lautier argued via the NPAA that the amendment would hurt African Americans' swaying power as an interest group in swing states, primarily due to disenfranchisement in the South (pre-Voting-Rights-Act) preventing a counterbalance in the vote for president.[54] Journalist Walter Lippmann, preferring the Congressional district model assumed by the Founders, argued the use of PR in the electoral college would lead to the use of PR in the House of Representatives.[55]

In early 1956, then-Senator Hubert Humphrey proposed an amendment to the Constitution in which 2 EVs would be given for the winner of a state's popular vote (96 total, before the addition of Alaska and Hawaii) and the rest (435) would be allocated proportionally according to the percentages of the nationwide vote.[56] The proposal passed the House but not the Senate.[57]

In 2004, voters rejected an initiated amendment to the Colorado state constitution that would have allocated its EVs proportionally with the state's popular vote and retroactively applied the system to the 2004 election occurring the same day.[58][59] Major politicians from both parties (Republican Gov. Bill Owens and the two candidates in the Senate race) opposed the initiative, and opponents argued it would eliminate Colorado's swing state character.[60] One study found that had Colorado allocated its electoral votes proportionally in the previous election, the presidency could have gone to Gore (270-268) if Barbara Lett-Simmons chose not to be a faithless elector.[61]

Contemporary usage

edit

Currently, multi-member elections for Congress are banned under the Uniform Congressional District Act.[62][63] The act was intended to ban general tickets[32] (a type of block voting[c] currently used in the Electoral College) for congressional races, which had been controversial since the 1840s,[64] but it also banned proportional systems.

Presidential primaries

edit

Following the controversial 1968 election, the DNC created the McGovern–Fraser Commission to democratize the presidential nomination process.[65] The commission supported using proportional representation for delegate selection and agreed with the DNC's decision to ban winner-take-all primaries.[66]

Results of the 2020 Democratic presidential primary, which used PR (including STV)
The 2016 Republican presidential primary in Michigan used PR to select delegates.

Proportional representation is currently used to elect pledged delegates to the Democratic National Convention.[67] Candidates must receive at least 15% of the vote to receive delegates.[68][69] Single transferable vote (proportional ranked-choice voting) was used in four states in the large 2020 Democratic primary, including in Kansas,[70][71] which saw an increase in turnout.[72]

Currently, the Republican National Committee leaves delegate selection processes to the states, resulting in a variety of systems for the Republican Party presidential nomination process. Some states use proportional representation, a plurality use proportional representation with a winner-take-all trigger after a threshold is reached, and some states use a true winner-take-all system.[73][74] In the 2024 Republican presidential primary elections, Nikki Haley received 19.7% of the vote and 97 delegates (4% of the total delegates).[75]

Return in municipal government

edit
Campaign poster for Henrietta Davis from a single transferable vote election

Multiple cities use proportional representation to elect their city councils,[76] including Portland, Minneapolis,[77] Charlottesville,[78][79] and Cambridge.[77] Portland's form of STV elects candidates who reach a victory threshold, but it does not ensure party proportional representation due to the races being formally nonpartisan.[80] Portland first used STV in its 2024 city council election.

Eastpointe, Michigan and Newburgh, New York transitioned to STV to settle Voting Rights Act disputes in 2017 and 2026 respectively.[81][82]

Relationship with Voting Rights Act (VRA)

edit

In 1993, Lani Guinier, a prominent civil rights lawyer, was nominated by then-President Bill Clinton for the Civil Rights Division of the Department of Justice. Guinier's civil rights legal papers on the Voting Rights Act garnered public controversy and Clinton withdrew her nomination, saying "[Guinier] seems to be arguing for principles of proportional representation and minority veto as general remedies that I think are inappropriate as general remedies, anti-democratic, and very difficult to defend."[84][85]

Some advocates, such as FairVote and More Equitable Democracy, see proportional representation as a solution to the perceived underrepresentation of Black Americans in Congress.[86][87] Several municipalities had transitioned from block voting systems to STV in the 2020s as a result of VRA lawsuits.

As part of a 2017 Voting Rights Act (VRA) lawsuit, Eastpointe, Michigan was told by the DOJ it needed to change its electoral system.[81] Pastor Albert Rush of Immanuel United Methodist Church expressed concerns over the original proposal to retain FPTP but remain in compliance with the VRA by drawing single-member districts. The original plan was to create a "Black ward" similar to minority-majority districts used for Congressional races. He characterized racial wards as "a step backward."[88] To settle the lawsuit, Eastpointe changed its electoral system from block voting to single transferable vote with a 33.3% threshold.[81][89] According to More Equitable Democracy, VRA lawsuits can be lengthy and expensive.[5]

Newburgh, New York adopted proportional ranked-choice voting (STV) to resolve a New York Voting Rights Act violation in February 2026.[90] Newburgh had previously elected all five members of its town board members at-large via block voting.[82] The town is currently the first in New York (since the repeals) to use STV. The new system only elects two representatives at a time, resulting in a higher threshold than Portland's races. The transition is expected to elect Black and brown representatives.[91][92]

Voting Rights Act Supreme Court decisions
edit
On the right is a sample map of Louisiana under the Fair Representation Act showing more compact multi-member districts than the 2025 Louisiana's congressional district FPTP map that the Supreme Court struck down. It has the ability to elect two Black representatives in the state.[93]

In Thornburg v. Gingles (1986), the Supreme Court created the Gingles test to determine whether a map is illegal under the Voting Rights Act. Its first prong, regarding the compactness and possible creation of majority-minority district, was expanded upon in Johnson v. De Grandy (1994), which found that a jurisdiction is unlikely to be liable for vote dilution if its redistricting plan contains a number of majority-minority districts that is proportional to the minority group's population.[94] This has been understood to have created a form of racial proportional representation as a remedy for VRA violations.

In the Louisiana v. Callais (2026) decision, which made VRA districting lawsuits more difficult to pursue, Justice Clarence Thomas wrote that the court "should never have interpreted §2 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 to effectively give racial groups 'an entitlement to roughly proportional representation.'"[95] FairVote criticized the court's decision and called for "proportional, multi-member districts that give every community a seat at the table."[86] Former Vice President Kamala Harris called for a "no bad ideas brainstorm" that would include "a conversation about multi-member districts" following 2025-2026 redistricting efforts and the Callais decision.[96][97]

Contemporary support and opposition

edit

Polling

edit

According to the 2022 Cooperative Election Study conducted by YouGov, 71% of Americans who have a positive opinion on ranked-choice voting also support proportional representation. This may suggest cross-support among the two electoral reforms, especially compared to national popular vote (NPV) support, which had lower support for PR among NPV supporters (58%).[98]

A Citizen Data poll commissioned by Protect Democracy in 2023 found that 59% of Americans had never heard of proportional representation. The poll found that after a generic explanation of PR, support for using proportional representation to elect representatives increased from 24% to 52%. A "Thanksgiving dinner" metaphor (where dishes won spots on the dinner table) resulted in an increase in support for PR to elect representatives from 27.4% to 61.5%.[99]

According to a September 2024 poll commissioned by the American Academy of Arts and Sciences of 3200 eligible voters, 63% of Americans supported a reform to increase the number of political parties, including a majority of Democrats, independents, and Republicans.[100] A Centiment study funded by FairVote found 66% of Democratic Illinois voters supported using proportional ranked-choice voting in the 2028 Democratic presidential primaries.[101]

Support

edit
On top is an estimate by Fairvote of party results in US House races in California under the Fair Representation Act.[102] Below is an example of a party-list system that more directly elects candidates in proportion to their vote share. How many seats would go to new parties is a matter of debate among American political scientists.

Journalists Ezra Klein[103] and Matthew Yglesias[104] expressed support for PR in 2026 in response to mid-cycle redistricting.

State legislature sponsors

edit

In 2026, Wyoming state senators Troy McKeown and Laursen Cooper introduced legislation to elect the Wyoming Legislature by closed-list proportional representation with list order determined by party primaries.[105][106]

Advocacy groups

edit

Reform groups such as FairVote,[107] Protect Democracy,[108] and Fix Our House advocate for proportional representation for federal races. More Equitable Democracy advocates for electoral reform as a way of achieving racial equity.[109]

The Democratic Socialists of America released a press statement in May 2026 supporting proportional representation following the Louisiana v. Callais decision.[110] Chapters in San Diego and Portland had expressed support for PR in 2024 prior to the national statement.[111][112]

The ProRep Coalition advocates for use of proportional representation in the California state legislature via ballot initiative,[113] citing increasing poverty, perceived lack of representation for left-of-center ideas in the Democratic Party, and lack of Republican influence on state legislation.[114] The coalition consists of third parties such as the Green Party, Libertarian Party, Forward California, and the American Solidarity Party,[115] as well as advocacy groups such as Represent Women, Californians for Electoral Reform, and Cal RCV.[115]

Congressional sponsors

edit

In October 1995, during the 104th Congress, Representative Cynthia McKinney introduced the Voters' Choice Act, which would have overturned the ban on multi-member districts for Congressional races and allowed for the use of cumulative and limited voting (semi-proportional systems) or single transferable vote (then described as preferential multi-member).[116][117] Unlike later proposed legislation, adoption of STV would be left to the states.

Every Congressional session since the 115th United States Congress, Congressman Don Beyer has introduced the Fair Representation Act,[118][119] which would split states into multi-member districts that would elect 3-5 representatives using STV, similar to the Dáil Éireann (lower house in Ireland).

Representative Sean Casten's Equal Voices Act would expand the size of the House of Representatives and allow for the optional use of multi-member districts.[120][121][122]

Representatives Marie Gluesenkamp Perez and Jared Golden supported the creation of an Electoral Reform Select Committee in the 119th Congress that would examine the current electoral system for Congressmembers and analyze alternatives, such as PR and expanding the House.[123][124]

Opposition

edit

In January 2026, House Republicans introduced the Make Elections Great Again Act, which would prohibit ranked-choice voting for federal elections (prohibiting STV) and prohibit any federal system that "permits a voter to vote for more than one candidate for the same office."[125][126] No modern sitting federal Republican politician has endorsed federal legislation to enact proportional representation.[127]

New York University School of Law professor Richard Pildes argued that political tensions are not inherent to first-past-the-post (FPTP) systems, and he said that the tensions surrounding Brexit were an aberrance in the political climate of the United Kingdom. He also questioned how many parties would form without reform to the Senate. Pildes suggested state legislature multi-member district (MMD) reform efforts to be a better starting place than federal races and recommended nonpartisan reforms to the primary process instead.[128]

According to the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, some lawmakers elected through winner-take-all elections were hesitant to change the system under which they had been elected, and one said that implementation of PR might require a delay period to pass.[100]

Effects

edit

Historical

edit

PR prevented vote splitting and undermined the effects of political machines in cities that used it in the 1920s.[33]

In New York City, under STV, 80% of legislation was passed unanimously.[129] In the 1939 election, Genevieve Earle formed a multiracial women's committee to attempt to elect a Black candidate that she had beaten the previous election. Commentators said this showed no resentment between the two.[129]

In the NYC 1939 city council election, which used PR, voter turnout was 90%.[130]

Turnover of representatives between two PR elections in New York City (1937 and 1939) was low, and only four out of 21 councilmembers following the 1939 election were newcomers.[131]

Race

edit

According to Hoag, PR undermined the Ku Klux Klan's ability to enter and control government in Ashtabula and Cleveland in the 1920s, since they did not have majority support.[132] In Cincinnati, Black residents consistently elected 2 (out of 9) Black councilmembers under PR, a disproportionate result for the city's demographics. After the repeal in 1957, the city did not have two Black councilmembers concurrently until 1992.[133] The first Black candidate to win an office in Toledo, Ohio was elected via single transferable vote in 1945.[134]

Ted Berrry, Cincinnati's first Black Mayor elected under PR in 1949[135]

Before the Louisiana v. Callais decision, Voting Rights Act lawsuits resulted in a transition away from block voting to STV in some municipalities.

Portland, which had been typically run by white men under FPTP, elected a majority POC city council in 2024 under STV.[136]

Women's representation

edit

In Portland's 2024 election, women won 50% of the seats. Previously, only 10 women had ever been elected to the city council.[136]

Number of parties

edit

In Ohio, of the five cities that adopted PR, only one had a minor party enter city council (one seat in Ashtabula). Cities in Ohio had a de facto two-party system (as opposed to one-party rule that had preceded the change) and not a multi-party system. In New York City, multiple parties arose due to large, diverse interests competing for seats.[48]

Proposed

edit

Federal

edit
During the 2026 midterms, 270toWin projected only 77 out of 435 seats were not "safe" for either party in the House (17.7% of the total).[137] PR advocates say it could increase the number of competitive seats.

PR may also expand national focus from swing races to unrepresented groups, such as Republicans in Democratic congressional districts.[127]

PR elections could introduce three or more political parties to Congress, requiring collaborative coalitions to elect a Speaker of the House.[138][127][128] Proportional representation could allow for centrist or syncretic parties to form coalitions in the House.[139]

Race and the Voting Rights Act
edit

Proponents of federal proportional representation argue it could give more electoral sway to minority groups who do not currently live in majority-minority districts. The threshold to be elected to Congress would be lower under a proportional voting system. In response to Miller v. Johnson (1995), Representative Cynthia McKinney saw PR as a solution to underrepresentation of African Americans in Congress.[117]

edit

See also

edit

Images

edit

Notes

edit
  1. ↑ "Minority representation" as used by 19th century electoral reform advocates referred to minority political parties or opinions, not ethnic minorities, and can be seen as a synonymous with "proportional representation."
  2. ↑ Early reformers called proportional representation "personal representation" after Thomas Hare's nonpartisan reform ideas during his invention of STV.
  3. ↑ Reformers in the 1910s sometimes called block voting "proportional representation" due to its election of multiple representatives, but it is now understood as a form of multi-member plurality voting since it does not ensure representation for smaller political parties.
edit

References

edit
  1. ↑ Mill, John Stuart (1861). "Chapter VII, Of True and False Democracy; Representation of All, and Representation of the Majority only". Considerations on Representative Government. London: Parker, Son, & Bourn.
  2. 1 2 Stephanopoulos, Nicholas. "Ranked-List Proportional Representation". Wisconsin Law Review. doi:10.59015/wlr.ZLMP1164.
  3. ↑ Anderson, William (1923). "The Constitutionality of Proportional Representation". National Municipal Review. 12 (12) – via Hein Online.
  4. ↑ "Iowa becomes the sixth state to ban ranked-choice voting this year". Ballotpedia News. 2025-06-05. Retrieved 2025-06-05.
  5. 1 2 "Our Work". www.equitabledemocracy.org. Retrieved 2026-03-19.
  6. ↑ "All Minnesota cities, counties could be permitted to use ranked choice voting - Session Daily - Minnesota House of Representatives". www.house.mn.gov. Retrieved 2026-03-19.
  7. 1 2 Santucci, Jack (May 2017). "Party Splits, Not Progressives: The Origins of Proportional Representation in American Local Government". American Politics Research. 45 (3): 494–526. doi:10.1177/1532673X16674774. ISSN 1532-673X.
  8. 1 2 "Murkowski, Peltola reelected in Alaska's ranked-choice voting, ABC News reports". ABC News. Retrieved 2026-02-10.
  9. ↑ DeSilver, Drew (2025-12-19). "U.S. stands out globally in how it draws legislative districts". Pew Research Center. Retrieved 2026-02-10.
  10. 1 2 Commons, John R (1907). Proportional representation. The Macmillan company.
  11. ↑ "U.S. Senate: Landmark Legislation: The Seventeenth Amendment to the Constitution". www.senate.gov. Retrieved 2026-02-10.
  12. ↑ "Could the Texas Senate race be headed for a runoff? New data offers clues". khou.com. 2026-02-09. Retrieved 2026-02-10.
  13. ↑ Flanigan, Timothy (August 20, 1992). "Whether a State May Elect Its United States Senators From Single-Member Districts Rather Than At-Large".
  14. ↑ Wills-Otero, Laura (2 January 2018). "Electoral Systems in Latin America: Explaining the Adoption of Proportional Representation Systems During the Twentieth Century". Latin American Politics and Society. 51 (3). doi:10.1111/j.1548-2456.2009.00055.x.
  15. ↑ Tideman, Nicolaus (2006). Collective Decisions and Voting: The Potential for Public Choice. Burlington, VT: Ashgate Publishing Company. ISBN 978-0-75464-717-1.
  16. ↑ "Andræs metode | Gyldendal - Den Store Danske". denstoredanske.dk (in Danish). Archived from the original on 2016-03-06. Retrieved 2026-02-17.
  17. ↑ Dahl, Robert, Robert (2003). How Democratic Is the American Constitution?. Yale University Press.
  18. ↑ Balinski, M. L.; Young, H. P. (1978). "The Jefferson method of Apportionment" (PDF). SIAM Rev. 20 (2): 278–284. doi:10.1137/1020040. S2CID 122291481.
  19. ↑ Edmund J James (1895). An Early Essay on Proportional Representation.
  20. ↑ "PR Library: On the Representation of Minorities of Electors to Act with the Majority in Elected Assemblies". FairVote. Retrieved 2026-03-10.
  21. ↑ Sterne, Simon; Personal Representation Society (1867). Report to the Constitutional Convention of the state of New York: on personal representation. New York: A. Simpson.
  22. ↑ Hoag, Clarence (1926). Proportional representation. p. 185.
  23. ↑ "GOVERNOR JOHN W. LEEDY, EX-SENATOR W. A. PEFFER, GOVERNOR S. A. HOLCOMB, HON. WHARTON BARKER,Tell What the Reform Forces ol the Country May Expect to Accom plish During the Coming Year and Along What Lines They Should Work to Bring About the Best Results". The Advocate. 1897-12-22. p. 3. ISSN 2329-2547. OCLC 12759330. Retrieved 2026-03-02.
  24. ↑ "Untitled". The Kinsley graphic. 1898-06-24. p. 1. ISSN 2329-2385. OCLC 11135068. Retrieved 2026-03-02.
  25. ↑ People's Party (Reno County (Kan.)), ed. (1896-08-27). "Editor Gazette". Hutchinson gazette. p. 4. ISSN 2329-406X. OCLC 12308054. Retrieved 2026-03-02.
  26. ↑ Commons, John R. (1902). Proportional representation. Girard, Kan: Appeal to reason.
  27. ↑ "Mar 21, 1913, page 14 - Los Angeles Evening Express at Newspapers.com™". Newspapers.com. Retrieved 2026-04-10.
  28. 1 2 Calvelli, Aidan. "The Lost Left of Proportional Representation" (PDF).
  29. 1 2 Allen, Joe (2023-09-13). "Lessons from the history of proportional representation in America". Protect Democracy. Retrieved 2026-03-10.
  30. 1 2 Sitton, Tom. "Proportional Representation and the Decline of Progressive Reform in Los Angeles". Southern California Quarterly. 77 (4). doi:10.2307/41171782 – via JSTOR.
  31. ↑ The two-country base of the PR League is shown by proposal to have the League's executive council composed of one member from each U.S. state and each Canadian province. https://archive.org/details/jstor-1009042/page/n5/mode/2up
  32. 1 2 3 Leppert, Drew DeSilver, Carrie Blazina, Janakee Chavda and Rebecca (2021-06-29). "More U.S. locations experimenting with alternative voting systems". Pew Research Center. Retrieved 2026-02-05.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  33. 1 2 3 Hoag (1923). "Proportional Representation in the United States. Its Spread, Principles of Operation, Relation to Direct Primaries, and General Results". The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science. 106 – via JSTOR.
  34. ↑ "Timeline". Retrieved 2024-12-12.
  35. ↑ "History of PR". archive.fairvote.org. Retrieved 2026-02-27.
  36. ↑ Ashtabula, Ohio Chamber of Commerce (1915). The Ashtabula Plan of municipal government: the Commission-Manager form with proportional representation; the text of the novel features of the Charter and an account of the first election, November 2, 1915. Robarts - University of Toronto. Ashtabula, Ohio, Chamber of Commerce.
  37. 1 2 3 Lefton, Claire (2025-11-03). "For 32 Years, Cincinnati Employed a Curious and Very Slow Election System". Cincinnati Magazine. Retrieved 2026-02-26.
  38. ↑ Allen, Joe (2023-09-13). "Lessons from the history of proportional representation in America". Protect Democracy. Retrieved 2026-02-04.
  39. 1 2 Goldman, Robert (August 1930). "An Analysis of Cincinnati's Proportional Representation Elections". American Political Science Association. 24 (3).
  40. ↑ "U.S. Election Plan Outworn Solon States". The Milwaukee leader. 1929-01-16. p. 1. Retrieved 2026-03-02.
  41. ↑ "Congressional Record". www.congress.gov. p. 27. Retrieved 2026-03-02.
  42. ↑ "Representative Victor Berger of Wisconsin, the First Socialist Member of Congress | US House of Representatives: History, Art & Archives". history.house.gov. Retrieved 2026-03-02.
  43. ↑ "Complete Tables Showing Counting of P.R. Vote for Councilmen in All Boroughs; Vote in Brooklyn--First to Twenty-third Count Vote in Brooklyn--Twenty-fourth to Final Count Complete Vote in Queens Complete Vote in the Bronx Richmond Vote Complete Vote in Manhattan". The New York Times. ISSN 0362-4331. Retrieved 2026-03-25.
  44. ↑ Cite error: The named reference :02 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  45. ↑ "N.Y. City Council Results Slowed". Rochester Democrat and Chronicle. Associated Press. November 3, 1937. Retrieved May 5, 2019 – via Newspapers.com.
  46. ↑ "New York's 1937 election and its results". National Municipal Review. January 1938. doi:10.1002/ncr.4110270110 – via Wiley Online Library.
  47. ↑ Hallet Jr, George (1940). Proportional Representation—The Key to Democracy. National Municipal League. p. 102.
  48. 1 2 3 "PR Library: A Brief History of Proportional Representation in the United States". FairVote. Retrieved 2026-03-02.
  49. ↑ Santucci, Jack. "In America, why does proportional voting have to attack political parties?" (PDF).
  50. ↑ "Cambridge's Ranked Choice Voting System, Explained | News | The Harvard Crimson". www.thecrimson.com. Retrieved 2026-02-27.
  51. ↑ "Ranked Choice Practice Ballot". www.cambridgema.gov. Retrieved 2026-02-27.
  52. ↑ Ross, Robert (2016). "Federalism and the Electoral College: The Development of the General Ticket Method for Selecting Presidential Electors". Publius. 46 (2) – via JSTOR.
  53. ↑ Silva, Ruth (March 1950). "The Lodge-Gossett Resolution: A Critical Analysis". American Political Science Review. 44 (1): 86–99. doi:10.2307/1950349. JSTOR 1950349. S2CID 146857817 – via Cambridge Core.
  54. ↑ Lautier, Louis (February 23, 1950). "In the Nation's Capital". The herald.
  55. ↑ "Mar 11, 1950, page 20 - Riverside Daily Press at Newspapers.com™". Newspapers.com. Retrieved 2026-04-09.
  56. ↑ Goldman, Ralph M. (1958). "Hubert Humphrey's S. J. 152: A New Proposal for Electoral College Reform". Midwest Journal of Political Science. 2 (1): 89–96. doi:10.2307/2109168. ISSN 0026-3397.
  57. ↑ "Past Attempts at Reform". FairVote. Retrieved 2026-03-04.
  58. ↑ "2004 Nov 2 • General • Amendment 36 • State of Colorado | State of Colorado". State of Colorado Elections Database. Retrieved 2026-03-04.
  59. ↑ "Judge to hear arguments on constitutionality of Amendment 36". KUSA.com. 2004-10-26. Retrieved 2026-03-05.
  60. ↑ Johnson, Kirk (2004-11-03). "Electoral Vote Redistribution Is Defeated". The New York Times. ISSN 0362-4331. Retrieved 2026-03-05.
  61. ↑ Adkins, Randall. "Colorado Amendment 36, Allocating Presidential Electors Proportionally". The Evolution of Political Parties, Campaigns, and Elections: Landmark Documents.
  62. ↑ "2 U.S. Code § 2c - Number of Congressional Districts; number of Representatives from each District". LII / Legal Information Institute. Retrieved 2026-02-04.
  63. ↑ Wang, Hansi Lo (2023-11-18). "Many voters say Congress is broken. Could proportional representation fix it?". NPR. Retrieved 2026-02-04.
  64. ↑ "The Apportionment Act of 1842: "In All Cases, By District" | US House of Representatives: History, Art & Archives". history.house.gov. Retrieved 2026-02-05.
  65. ↑ Skelley, Geoffrey (2016-02-04). "The Modern History of the Democratic Presidential Primary, 1972-2008". Sabato's Crystal Ball. Retrieved 2026-03-03.
  66. ↑ Center, Judith (June 1974). "1972 Democratic Convention Reforms and Party Democracy". Political Science Quarterly. 89 (2). doi:10.2307/2149263.
  67. ↑ Harrison, Jaime (2022). "2024 Delegate Selection Rules for the Democratic National Convention" (PDF).
  68. ↑ "Democrats must act now to avoid an undemocratic 2020 outcome". Brookings. Retrieved 2026-03-03.
  69. ↑ "Everything you need to know about delegate math in the presidential primary". The Washington Post. 2016-02-16. ISSN 0190-8286. Retrieved 2026-03-03.
  70. ↑ Levy, Adam (2020-05-03). "Joe Biden wins Kansas Democratic primary | CNN Politics". CNN. Retrieved 2026-03-03.
  71. ↑ Hutchinson, Rachel (2020-11-01). "RCV in Kansas's 2020 Democratic Presidential Primary". FairVote. Retrieved 2026-03-03.
  72. ↑ "Rank the Vote Kansas - RCV in Kansas". www.rankthevotekansas.org. Retrieved 2026-03-03.
  73. ↑ "2024 Republican Delegate Allocation Rules by State". Retrieved 2026-03-03.
  74. ↑ GovFacts (2025-12-05). "Primaries vs. Caucuses: How America Picks Its Presidential Candidates". GovFacts. Retrieved 2026-03-03.
  75. ↑ "2024 Presidential Delegate Tracker". AP News. Retrieved 2026-03-03.
  76. ↑ By. "In 1930s NYC, Proportional Representation Boosted the Left". jacobin.com. Retrieved 2026-02-04.
  77. 1 2 "Proportional RCV Information". FairVote. Retrieved 2026-02-04.
  78. ↑ Allen, Sarah (2024-09-03). "Charlottesville City Council votes to implement ranked choice voting in June 2025". CBS 19 News. Retrieved 2026-02-27.
  79. ↑ Glass, Maggie (2024-09-04). "Charlottesville City Council will use ranked-choice voting for its June 2025 primary election". Retrieved 2026-02-27.
  80. ↑ "Portland City Elections: Toward Two Parties, More, or None?". Manhattan Institute. Retrieved 2026-02-10.
  81. 1 2 3 Press, Associated (2019-11-04). "Unusual election method in Eastpointe breaks new ground". WXYZ 7 News Detroit. Retrieved 2026-03-19.
  82. 1 2 "Hudson Valley Hometown To Launch Historic New Way To Vote". Hudson Valley Post. 2026-03-02. Retrieved 2026-03-18.
  83. ↑ "2021 Cambridge City Council Ranked Choice Voting Election Results Visualization". rcvis.com. RCVis. March 7, 2026.
  84. ↑ "Guinier's Ideas Viewed as Largely Theoretical : Nominee: In her 'academic' article on voting rights, the conclusions she reaches appear to be tentative". Los Angeles Times. 1993-06-05. Retrieved 2026-05-06.
  85. ↑ Terrell, Cynthia Richie (2026-04-30). "Amid Escalating Attacks on the Voting Rights Act and U.S. Democracy in Crisis, Lani Guinier's Vision Feels More Urgent Than Ever". Ms. Magazine. Retrieved 2026-05-06.
  86. 1 2 "Statement on Supreme Court ruling in Louisiana v. Callais". FairVote. 2026-04-29. Retrieved 2026-04-30.
  87. ↑ Algara, Guy-Uriel E. Charles, Luis Fuentes-Rohwer, Michael Latner & Carlos (2026-02-16). "Callais Confusion, Power-Sharing, and the Inevitability of Proportional Representation". Yale Law Journal. Retrieved 2026-04-30.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  88. ↑ McNally, Grace (2020-07-20). EASTPOINTE. Retrieved 2026-03-19 – via Vimeo.
  89. ↑ drcprod (2019-12-17). "Ranked Choice Voting and the Detroit Region". Detroit Regional Chamber. Retrieved 2026-03-19.
  90. ↑ Saras, Vandana. "Newburgh voting case settled; ranked-choice system will be implemented".
  91. ↑ Guerra, Elias (2026-03-05). "Town of Newburgh first in state to adopt proportional rank-choice voting". WAMC. Retrieved 2026-03-18.
  92. ↑ Huang, Bryan (2026-03-06). "Newburgh, NY adopts proportional ranked choice voting". FairVote. Retrieved 2026-03-18.
  93. ↑ "The Fair Representation Act in Louisiana". FairVote. Retrieved 2026-03-19.
  94. ↑ Gerken, Heather K. (2001). "Understanding the Right to an Undiluted Vote". Harvard Law Review. 114 (6): 1663–1743. doi:10.2307/1342651. JSTOR 1342651. Retrieved November 20, 2013.
  95. ↑ Howe, Amy (2026-04-29). "In major Voting Rights Act case, Supreme Court strikes down redistricting map challenged as racially discriminatory". www.scotusblog.com. Retrieved 2026-04-30.
  96. ↑ "Harris' 'no bad idea brainstorm' for Dems includes packing SCOTUS, eliminating Electoral College". 930 WFMD Free Talk. Retrieved 2026-05-18.
  97. ↑ "Tim Graham: Kamala's 'brainstorm' is destroying all the norms". mauinews.com. Retrieved 2026-05-18.
  98. ↑ Dowling, Dr Eveline. "RCV May Be a Stepping Stone to Proportional Representation - The Fulcrum". thefulcrum.us. Retrieved 2026-05-14.
  99. ↑ Allen, Joe (2023-11-21). "How open are Americans to electoral system reform?". Protect Democracy. Retrieved 2026-05-14.
  100. 1 2 "Expanding Representation: Reinventing Congress for the 21st Century | American Academy of Arts and Sciences". www.amacad.org. Retrieved 2026-02-26.
  101. ↑ Otis, Deb (2026-03-17). "Survey: Illinois Democrats want ranked choice voting". FairVote. Retrieved 2026-03-18.
  102. ↑ "The Fair Representation Act in California". FairVote. Retrieved 2026-03-11.
  103. ↑ Klein, Ezra; Gordon, Claire (2026-05-19). "Opinion | How to End the Gerrymandering Doom Loop Forever". The New York Times. ISSN 0362-4331. Retrieved 2026-05-19.
  104. ↑ Substack (2026-04-23). "Matthew Yglesias (@matthewyglesias)". Substack. Retrieved 2026-05-19.
  105. ↑ "Legislative Service Office". www.wyoleg.gov. Retrieved 2026-04-09.
  106. ↑ Richie, Rob. "Making parties great again, early election results, and timely links - The Fulcrum". thefulcrum.us. Retrieved 2026-04-09.
  107. ↑ "Proportional Representation". FairVote. Retrieved 2026-02-05.
  108. ↑ Allen, Joe (2023-09-13). "Lessons from the history of proportional representation in America". Protect Democracy. Retrieved 2026-02-05.
  109. ↑ "About Us". www.equitabledemocracy.org. Retrieved 2026-03-19.
  110. ↑ "DSA Voting Rights Act Statement". Democratic Socialists of America (DSA). May 6, 2026. Retrieved 2026-05-13.
  111. ↑ America, San Diego Chapter of the Democratic Socialists of (2024-08-20). "DSA San Diego Passes Resolution "For a Democratic Constitution"". Democratic Socialists of America | San Diego Chapter. Retrieved 2026-05-13.
  112. ↑ Schweitzer, Oren. "Fighting for Democracy Means Fighting for Proportional Representation". Democratic Socialists of America (DSA). Retrieved 2026-05-13.
  113. ↑ "What is Proportional Representation?". ProRep Coalition. Retrieved 2026-02-05.
  114. ↑ "Representing the Golden State: The Road to Multiparty Democracy in California" (PDF). ProRep Coalition. January 2024.
  115. 1 2 "ProRep California Coalition | Electoral Reform & Multiparty Push". ProRep Coalition. Retrieved 2026-02-05.
  116. ↑ Rep. McKinney, Cynthia A. [D-GA-11 (1995-11-06). "Text - H.R.2545 - 104th Congress (1995-1996): Voters' Choice Act". www.congress.gov. Retrieved 2026-03-31.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (link)
  117. 1 2 Ritchie, Rob (1996). "Proportional Representation". National Civic Review – via Hein Online.
  118. ↑ "H.R.3057 - Fair Representation Act". congress.gov. 14 July 2017. Retrieved 2021-10-04.
  119. ↑ "House Delegation Reintroduces Fair Representation Act to Reform Congressional Elections". U.S. Representative Don Beyer. 2025-07-23. Retrieved 2026-02-05.
  120. ↑ "Text of H.R. 4125: Equal Voices Act (Introduced version)". GovTrack.us. Retrieved 2026-02-10.
  121. ↑ "Casten Introduces Legislation to Increase Size of House and Senate, Change SCOTUS' Jurisdiction | U.S. Congressman Sean Casten". casten.house.gov. Retrieved 2026-02-10.
  122. ↑ "Sean Casten floats some big ideas for Congress, Supreme Court". Crain's Chicago Business. 2023-02-03. Retrieved 2026-02-10.
  123. ↑ Rep. Perez, Marie Gluesenkamp [D-WA-3 (2025-01-07). "Text - H.Res.20 - 119th Congress (2025-2026): Establishing the Select Committee on Electoral Reform". www.congress.gov. Retrieved 2026-03-26.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (link)
  124. ↑ "Golden, Gluesenkamp Perez Introduce Bill to Establish Bipartisan Electoral Reform Select Committee | Representative Jared Golden". golden.house.gov. 2024-11-19. Retrieved 2026-03-26.
  125. ↑ Greene, Connor. "The Sweeping Elections Changes Republicans Are Proposing". TIME. Archived from the original on 2026-01-30. Retrieved 2026-02-05.
  126. ↑ Rep. Steil, Bryan [R-WI-1 (2026-01-30). "Text - H.R.7300 - 119th Congress (2025-2026): Make Elections Great Again Act". www.congress.gov. Retrieved 2026-02-05.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (link)
  127. 1 2 3 Wang, Hansi Lo (2023-11-18). "Many voters say Congress is broken. Could proportional representation fix it?". NPR. Retrieved 2026-02-05.
  128. 1 2 Pildes, Richard. "Why Proportional Representation Could Make Things Worse" (PDF).
  129. 1 2 Perry, Elisabeth. After the Vote: Feminist Politics in La Guardia's New York. doi:10.1093/oso/9780199341849.003.0009.
  130. ↑ "90% of Those Registered Voted Under P.R. in City". The New York Times. ISSN 0362-4331. Retrieved 2026-03-25.
  131. ↑ "P.R. AS SCAPEGOAT". The New York Times. ISSN 0362-4331. Retrieved 2026-03-25.
  132. ↑ Hoag, Clarence. Proportional representation. p. 130.
  133. ↑ Stephens, V. Jerone. "Proportional Representation and Election Reform in Ohio. By Kathleen L. Barber. Columbus: Ohio State University Press, 1995. 383p. $45.00". American Political Science Review. 90 (3): 643–643. doi:10.2307/2082635. ISSN 0003-0554.
  134. ↑ "Donnovan and Simmons to Replace Bame, Millard". Toledo union journal. 1945-11-16. p. 1. ISSN 0745-1989. OCLC 6483970. Retrieved 2026-03-02.
  135. ↑ "Nov 28, 1957, page 14 - The Cincinnati Post at Newspapers.com™". Newspapers.com. Retrieved 2026-05-01.
  136. 1 2 Terrell, Cynthia Richie (2025-10-10). "As Trump Targets Portland, a New Report Shows How the City Became a Model for Women's Representation". Ms. Magazine. Retrieved 2026-03-19.
  137. ↑ "Consensus 2026 House of Representatives Election Forecast - 270toWin". 270toWin.com. Archived from the original on March 19, 2026. Retrieved 2026-03-19.
  138. ↑ Wegman, Jesse; Drutman, Lee (2025-01-14). "Opinion | How to Fix America's Two-Party Problem". The New York Times. ISSN 0362-4331. Retrieved 2026-02-05.
  139. ↑ "Multipartyism in Action". New America. 2026-04-01. Retrieved 2026-04-02.
  140. ↑ Blair, George. "The Adoption of Cumulative Voting in Illinois". Journal of the Illinois State Historical Society. 47 (4) – via JSTOR.
  141. ↑ "Illinois Constitution - Amendments Proposed". www.ilga.gov. Retrieved 2026-03-05.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Proportional_representation_in_the_United_States&oldid=1355075306"