Proportional representation is better with ranked choice voting
Executive Summary
- Proportional representation (PR) voting methods improve political and demographic representation in legislatures.
- Proportional ranked choice voting (RCV) maintains the positive aspects of PR, while also providing stronger incentives for effective governing than other PR methods.
- Proportional RCV is uniquely suited for American elections, because it preserves the American tradition of voting for individuals instead of political parties.
- The Fair Representation Act would implement proportional RCV for U.S. House elections, creating a Congress that is both representative and effective.
Proportional representation describes voting methods in which different groups of voters elect winners in proportion to their share of votes cast. As a result, PR methods improve political representation, increase voter choice, and better represent minority communities.
In his new article, “The Neglected Value of Effective Government,” legal scholar Rick Pildes notes that all voting methods, including PR ones, come with tradeoffs. Pildes argues that in several European democracies, PR methods have made coalition-building more challenging by fostering numerous small political parties. Though more viewpoints are represented, these smaller parties often struggle to form the enduring alliances required to maintain stable governments.
However, in Australia we find an exception to the friction between representation and effective governing. Australians use proportional ranked choice voting, known internationally as single transferable voting, to elect their Senate.
Proportional RCV is particularly good at facilitating inter-party collaboration because candidates often need to be a backup choice of their opponents’ supporters to win. This encourages more policy overlap, deters negative advertising, and enables easier post-election negotiations. It diverges from winner-take-all voting and list-proportional representation, which are zero-sum (i.e. when voters can only pick one option, candidates and parties have an incentive to amplify their differences and refuse to compromise).
Proportional RCV encourages parties to bargain in good faith, rather than oppose popular policies for political reasons. Representatives choosing to be obstinate are likely to be excluded from negotiations and may lose votes to those who – regardless of party – achieved better outcomes for their supporters through constructive compromise.
Moreover, unlike other forms of proportional representation, proportional ranked choice voting upholds America’s tradition of voting for people instead of parties. American voters frequently split their ticket; they have proven time and time again that their views are more nuanced than a single party label. For instance, in Alaska’s RCV elections last year, a vast majority of voters used their top two rankings on candidates from the same party – but a significant share (about 20%) crossed party lines, even when multiple members of the same party were on the ticket. Statewide winners included a conservative Republican governor, moderate Republican senator, and moderate Democratic representative.
Proportional RCV is used in several U.S. jurisdictions, and has been proposed at the federal level in the Fair Representation Act. Because several Republicans and Democrats would be likely to compete for and win seats in the same districts, the diversity within the two parties would be better represented. Major-party candidates would also have new incentives to collaborate, since they need backup-choice support from each other’s supporters to win swing seats.
Proportional RCV improves the PR framework by balancing representation with effective governing. It would make Congress work better for every American. By passing the Fair Representation Act, we can make it a reality.
This is the fourth post in FairVote’s #PutRCVOnIt series, where we examine how RCV works in conjunction with, and improves, other election reforms. We acknowledge that there are many ideas for improving American democracy, but also that no reform is a silver bullet. We explain why RCV is a key piece of the puzzle, and how it fits in with other pieces.
