“Should the United States adopt a proportional representative system instead of the current ‘Winner’?

“Should the United States adopt a proportional representative system instead of the current ‘Winner’?

Introduction

American elections are based on the current ‘winner-take-all’ system that means that the voters for the candidates with the highest votes get representation while others get nothing. The principle is unnecessary and unjust and calls for electoral reforms to be made to correct the existing setbacks. The system is considered to be unfair as it leaves political and racial minorities underrepresented. This goes against the principle of democracy that promotes the representation of all individuals. Further, the system is unnecessary as there are immediate positions at the national, state and local levels that can be employed to join the democracies that have already used the proportional representation system. The proportional representation system should be applied in the US as it is built on the principle that voters with prevailing ideologies should win legislative positions in proportion to the share of the popular vote.

Discussion

The ‘winner-take-all’ system has been practiced in the US over the years. It has been observed to have three significant weaknesses, which are underrepresentation of ethnic and racial minorities, restriction of choices to a two-party system and dominance by one party.  The winner-take-all awards representation to the majority making the proportional representative system the appropriate system for the US.  The ‘winner-take-all’ approach has been observed to underrepresent electorates from minority groups while limiting their voters’ choices, and this devalues the fundamental democratic right. These weaknesses can be corrected through the application of a proportional representative system as no other political reforms can adequately address them.

The leading concern with the ‘winner-take-all’ approach is the lack of representation of the minorities. The proportion of Asian-American, Latino and Black elected officials is lower while compared to the share of the voters. It follows that members of the racial and ethnic groups prefer to vote for representatives from their race. However, the ‘winner-take-all’ system denies them the chance to vote for the candidates that they prefer. A quarter of the population is Latino or Black, but these racial groups hold one out of one hundred Senate seats that indicates a significant level of underrepresentation. The underrepresentation cuts across legislatures and challenges their efficiency and legitimacy in addressing the issues that are faced by ethnic and racial minorities.

The ‘winner-take-all’ approach has entrenched the development of the two-party system in the US. While a similar number of parties have been established in Europe and the US since 1960, their success has been influenced by the election system used. The new parties that have introduced in the US lack representation owing to the application of the ‘winner-take-all’ method. On the other hand, the emerging political parties in Europe have attained electoral viability and won seats. Minor political parties mainly enjoy minority support, and this is not acknowledged in the ‘winner-take-all’ system calling for the application of the proportional representative to address these issues.

The ‘winner-take-all’ system has contributed to limited choice during elections. During most elections, voters experience ‘no-choice’ for different positions. The supremacy of one-party districts is expected, and gerrymandering paves the way for legislators to choose their constituents before they cast their vote. This proves that the weakness lies in the ‘winner-take-all’ approach that can be rectified using the proportional representation system.

Arguments for a proportional representative system have emerged from diverse groups and perspectives. Historically, the position has been supported by distinguished individuals, including Franklin Roosevelt, Charles Beard, Alexis de Tocqueville, Robert Kennedy and Philip Randolph. John Stuart Mill remains one of the most outspoken supporters of the proportional representative approach.

Mill’s most significant contribution to the proportional representation argument is the majoritarian argument. The position asserts that the majority rule is improved through the application of minority representation. Mill pointed out that through increasing the number of voters that elect representatives, proportional representation improves the chances that a legislative majority gets. The goal of the system is to ensure that the views of the minorities are heard and represented. Mill stated that a given majority is made up of groups of minorities, and it is not a monolithic alliance as held by popular opinion. Mill noted that once some constituents are left out from representation, a given law can be passed without the support of the majority. Further, Mill argued that proportional representation is significant for the interests of majority groups as he asserted that it offers minorities a chance to challenge conservative wisdom. Mill’s majoritarian argument continues to be a critical position that supports the application of proportional representative system while compared to the ‘winner-takes-all’ approach that has been applied over the years.

Additional claims have been brought forward in support of the proportional representative system in the US over the ‘winner-take-all’ position. First, proportion representation has been observed to increase the electorate turn out. Studies have shown that countries that apply the system have a higher voter turnout while compared to nations that use the ‘winner-take-all’ system. The disparity can be understood based on the US case as legislative elections are relatively competitive. Additionally, an evaluation of House elections in recent times has shown that a close link exists between the level of participation and degree of competition during various elections. The proportional representation system is expected to work effectively in the United States as attaining fair representation is dependent on voter turnout. Voters are encouraged to take part in elections as all votes count and are granted representation.

The US should apply a proportional representative system in the place of the present ‘winner-take-all’ approach that has been implemented over the years as it guarantees women and minorities better representation. Racial minorities make up a significant number of voters in the US and a system that grants them equal representation should be used to ensure that their issues are well-represented. On the other hand, proportional representation has a record of putting women in legislative positions. The US stands to benefits from the better representation of women and racial minorities through the introduction of the proportional representative system.

Conclusion

In summation, the current ‘winner-take-all’ system that is adopted in the US has been observed to have significant challenges that interfere with the democracy and rights of the electorate. These weaknesses can be addressed by applying a proportional representative system that is likely to result in higher voter turnout and improved representation of minorities and women. Additionally, introducing a proportional representation approach in the US is expected to be relatively straightforward while compared to other methods such as universal voter registration, fusion or term limits. The proportional representative system will address the challenged posed by the ‘winner-take-all’ method applied in America.