City on the Hill: Broken democracy, broken dreams

Why “winner take all” district elections, whether at federal, state or local levels, are fundamentally unrepresentative and disempowering

Tower of Babel by Pieter Bruegel the Elder

[Dear DemocracySOS readers, I hope Spring is springing eternal wherever you are. I am happy to report that our readership keeps growing. But — here comes the usual keening — to keep this financially sustainable, it’s necessary for a certain number of you to toss some coins into the tip jar, i.e. become paying sustainers. It’s only $5 per month — less than one morning’s coffee, less than a slice of pizza, about the same as a Netflix movie. Can you help sustain this operation? Here’s the subscription link that will make me happy, and it will only take you a minute. Thanks in advance for your support of our collective effort here at DemocracySOS. And now…on with the show.]

Imagine a mythical city in the heartland, which is seeking a better method to ensure that all of its residents in their “multi-everything” city feel like they have adequate political representation and a vested interest in participating in a healthy society. Let’s call this city:  America.

In this bright shining city called America, there are three politically polarized factions: the Jeffersons, the Hamiltons and the Douglasses. These three factions have sharply divergent political viewpoints, and neither faction ever votes for a member of the other faction. Moreover, the Jeffersons, the Hamiltons and the Douglasses are evenly distributed throughout the city, such that in every neighborhood 60% of the people are Jeffersons, 30% are Hamiltons and 10% are Douglasses.

The city of America is governed by a city council of 10 members. So the question arises, and becomes hotly debated: how should this “multi-everything” municipality elect its council to ensure that all three political factions are adequately represented, and that the city does not polarize amid ongoing bitterness and dysfunction?

The leading framers of this new vision for America realize they have a few choices, in terms of which electoral method to use.

One choice is to elect the city council “at-large” by “plurality” (that is, citywide elections with no division into districts, and the 10 highest vote-getters win). This is a seemingly simple method, in which each voter would have 10 votes and can use as many or as few votes as she or he wishes. The 10 most popular candidates would be elected, which seems to be not only simple but to comport with much-revered bedrock values of representative democracy.

The problem with this method, however, is that the Jeffersons are virtually certain to capture all 10 seats on the city council. The Jefferson majority will reliably vote for members of its own faction, and its voters’ 60% total can easily outvote the 30% Hamiltons and 10% Douglasses for every seat, every time. Even if the Hamiltons and Douglasses joined forces, they would not have enough votes for either of them to win.

The only hope for a Hamilton or Douglass candidate to get elected would be if the Jefferson faction ran too many candidates (greater than 10) and its voters split their votes among too many spoiler candidates. But the Hamilton and the Douglass factions would have to be very disciplined and only run a single candidate, and have all of their voters “bullet vote” for that candidate. Then pray for a lucky roll of the dice.

The “plurality at-large” voting method is the worst of all for ensuring broad representation. Of ensuring “no taxation without representation.” And yet it is the most widespread method in use today in the US. Some say it is simple to use, but in reality it is primitive, and certainly inadequate as a foundation for representation of today’s “multi-everything” populations.

Representation by districts?

To prevent such a one-sided monopoly on representation, the city of America instead decides to adopt district elections – dividing the city up into ten geographically-delineated zones that are equal in population and will elect one council member each.

But in this city of America, dividing the cityscape into 10 districts made no difference in the composition of the city council. That’s because the Jeffersons, Hamiltons and Douglasses are distributed evenly throughout the city, so each individual district still has a large Jefferson majority that can outvote the others, once again shutting out the Hamilton and Douglass minorities from winning representation.

Under any of the systems discussed so far, broadly called “winner-take-all” voting, it is almost certain that the Jeffersons will in fact “win all,” and the Douglasses and Hamiltons will win nothing. They will fail to capture any seats on the council, even though the Douglasses and Hamiltons each constitute a significant minority of the city’s population.

Gerrymandering enters the game

Now suppose that the 30% Hamilton and 10% Douglass minorities are not dispersed equally throughout the city, but each is substantially concentrated in one or two areas. In this case, if the district lines are drawn just the right way – called “gerrymandering” – so that the Hamilton and Douglass minorities become a majority in one or possibly two districts each, then this method could result in a city council consisting of seven or eight Jeffersons, one or possibly two Hamiltons, and maybe one Douglass. But the minority voters would have to make sure they don’t split their vote among too many of their own candidates, otherwise those candidates would spoil each other. Consequently, a political organization might have to play the role of “boss machine” that decides which candidates get to run.

Now the districting plan’s specific lines become all important, and the line-drawing process would likely be controlled by the Jefferson majority. Using modern computers and voter databases, the biased line-drawers would be able to split either or both the Hamilton and Douglass territories into separate districts, so that they don’t end up with a majority in any one district. That would effectively deny them fair representation.

Or the city of America might employ an independent line-drawing commission to draw its district lines that succeeds in fashioning districts that elect one or two Hamiltons and one Douglass, giving them some representation.

However, even when the gerrymander is successful in creating a “majority-minority” district or two, it’s only those Hamilton and Douglass voters living in the right district who will be able to vote for a winning candidate. All the other Hamilton and Douglass voters who live in the other eight Jefferson districts become what is known as “orphaned voters” – voters without an electoral home where they can elect a candidate that reflects their viewpoint.

For that matter, the Jefferson voters in the majority-minority Hamilton and Douglass districts also become orphaned voters. Over time, orphaned voters realize that their candidates can’t ever win, and so they quit participating. Voter turnout declines, apathy reigns.

“Broad representation” methods can make a difference

The new framers of America realize they have a problem. The two methods most widely used – “plurality wins all” at-large and winner-take-all districts – really don’t provide adequate representation for a population as diverse and polarized as their city. Using such methods will only further the bitter polarization, underrepresent vast swaths of voters, increase apathy among orphaned voters and decrease voter participation. Their local democracy will wither.

So they decide to think “outside the box.” America is a place that likes to think of itself as innovative, and also likes to be self-sufficient and doesn’t usually look outside of itself for better methods. But in this situation, rather than continuing to use one of the ineffective winner-take-all methods, its framers decide to use a different voting method under the category of what is called “proportional representation.”

Under this electoral method, the city of America would elect its 10 city councilors from multi-seat (rather than single-seat) districts, either city-wide or a smaller subset (such as districts with anywhere from 3 to 5 seats). A method known as proportional ranked choice voting can be used to ensure that the Jeffersons, Hamiltons and Douglasses all win their fair share of representation on the city council.

Proportional ranked choice voting (PRCV) to the rescue

With this ranked choice voting form of proportional representation electing all 10 seats at once, any candidate that wins 10% of the vote would win one seat. So if the Hamiltons win 30% of the vote they are guaranteed to elect 30% -- three -- of the 10 seats. If the Douglasses win 10% of the vote, they are guaranteed to elect one of the 10 seats. And if the Jeffersons pull in their 60% of the vote, they will elect six of the 10 seats. Everyone wins their fair representational share.  

In this election, PRCV is a nonpartisan form of proportional representation (though it can be used in partisan elections too), and it is based on the concept of “transferable ballots.” Transferable ballots are a modern democratic wonder, the best guarantee against voters wasting their votes on unelectable candidates. That’s because voters pick their favorite candidates, ranking their top choice first, next favorite second, next favorite third, and so on. If their top choice doesn’t have enough support to win, their vote transfers to their second choice, and keeps transferring until it can help elect one of their choices. Your lower ranked candidates cannot help defeat your higher ranked candidates since your vote only counts for the lower candidates when your higher candidates have been eliminated.

Also, if their top choice has already been elected, their “surplus vote” transfers to their next choice (though at a reduced value), and so they may see two or more of their favorite candidates win. Strategic voting, i.e. bullet voting, like the kind used in plurality at-large elections, or political machines deciding which candidates can run, like in district elections, is not necessary and does not give an advantage to voters or candidates.

All votes are transferred until all city council seats have been filled. The Jefferson, Hamilton and Douglass voters all win representation in proportion to their voting strength at the polls. PRCV is also known by political scientists as “single transferable vote” or “preferential voting.” It has been used for decades in many countries (such as Ireland and Australia), as well as in a handful of US cities, and it provides the fairest and most flexible method for ensuring full and broad representation, reducing polarization and not wasting any voter’s vote on spoilers.

The new framers of this mythical city called America finally realize that proportional ranked choice voting is the best method for their multi-everything city. They realize that a “plurality-wins-all” at-large method or winner-take-all districts might seem simple at first, but in reality there are significant negative consequences to using these primitive methods, especially considering the deep divisions and diverse demographics of their city.

Proportional ranked choice voting may seem more complicated at first, but the rules of professional baseball or football are far more complicated than the rules of PRCV. Yet millions of people master those. In reality, it’s just unfamiliar and so seems complicated. But I like to think of it as being more sophisticated in the benefits it provides, and in the efficiency with which it does not waste votes and provides broad representation. It is truly “state-of-the-art” democracy, as it has been called.

For America to once again become that shining city on the hill, for the land of “We the People” to reengage with those self-evident truths that “all of us are created equal,” we must re-embody the spirit of democratic innovation that inspired and guided the hand of those late 18th-century framers and founders. We know a lot more today about which voting methods provide the best representation. Indeed, proportional voting methods had not yet been invented in the late 18th-century when the US was founded.

The way to keep faith with the brilliance of the founders is not to worship them or what they created, but to imitate their genius of reinvention, meeting the democratic challenges of our times, just like they met the challenges of their times.

Steven Hill @StevenHill1776