TIME TO CONSIDER PROPORTIONAL REPRESENTATION

Fifty-six years ago, when I entered this country and when I first encountered U.S. politics, I remember thinking that our system of electing representatives to Congress did not seem very democratic. Granted, I was naive and I did not appreciate the intricacies of the "winner take all" system we used to select many of our political leaders. A few years later I struggled to explain this system to an international audience when I covered the 1972 electoral contest for a Dutch newspaper. This was the same year when Richard Nixon and George McGovern battled each other for the presidency. To an audience that grew up with "proportional representation," our system appeared archaic, unrepresentative and not terribly inclusive. Fast forward to the present, to partisan gridlock, popular exhaustion and even anger at the state of our political union. Polls are beginning to indicate that the majority of those participating appear ready for a change. A new national poll conducted by"Citizen Data" on behalf of "Project Democracy" finds that two-thirds of respondents wish that they had more political parties to choose from. Less than half feel closely represented by their congress person, and two-thirds don't feel represented by Congress at all. Our method of selecting representatives to Congress employs single member districts. Each state carves up its territory into the same number of districts as it is constitutionally allocated. After an election, in each district the candidate with the most votes wins and is elected to represent the entire district. This system has been the norm since 1842, and its use became law when the Uniform Congressional District Act was adopted in 1967. However, its implementation is not a constitutional requirement. While our Constitution specifies that each state will be apportioned a number of representatives proportional to its population, it does not specify how those representatives should be elected. More than 100 countries use a form of proportional representation as their method of allocating delegates to their governmental institutions. This system aims to ensure that the number of seats won by each party is proportional to the number of votes it receives in an election. While there are different variations of this system, they all work by dividing the country into multi-member constituencies and apportioning seats to parties based on their share of the vote. In this system citizens vote for a party, which typically publishes a list of individuals that are elected in rank order based on the number of seats the party wins as a result of the outcome of the election. Both of these systems emerged from its own political history. Their relative selection at some point depended on the objective each country's political elite pursued. They each have their pros and cons. Our system of selecting representatives benefits from its simplicity. It usually gives a clear, quick election result, which traditionally allowed for stable government. Its disadvantage is that minority political viewpoints are shut out or have a reduced role. These outcomes result in a large number of "wasted" votes - one winner, but many, frequently frustrated and disgruntled losers. Proportional representation systems tend to produce greater participation by the electorate. Minor parties, or out of mainstream ideas, have a better chance of being represented. These systems are systemically more resistant to gerrymandering and other forms of manipulation. And, especially in developing democracies, inclusion of minorities in the legislature can be essential to establish social stability and to consolidate the democratic process. With the exception of electoral thresholds - the minimum percent of the vote any party needs to procure to gain representation, usually 3-5% - virtually all votes convert to seats in government. This results in far fewer wasted votes, and provides an outlet for minority viewpoints. A principle objection to P.R. systems is that they almost always result in coalition governments. This can give extreme parties a foothold in Parliament. Very small parties can act as "king makers" holding larger parties ransom during coalition discussions. However, supporters see coalitions as an advantage, forcing compromise between parties and cement agreements at the center of the political spectrum. This process tends to produce greater continuity and stability, fewer wasted votes and more democratic outcomes. Given that many of us have become frustrated by the inability of our current system to accomplish cooperative results, we ought to consider the advantages of a viable alternative. Theo Wierdsma