Full Representation:
Proportional Systems Promote Inclusion, Deliberation
and Better Policy
The Center for Voting and Democracy
President Bill Clinton began his second term in 1997 with
an optimistic inaugural address in which he urged Americans to
"keep our old democracy forever young." Among our nation's
foremost challenges, he warned, will be "the divide of race,"
but that: "Our rich texture of racial, religion and political
diversity will be a godsend in the 21st century. Great rewards
will come to those who can live together, learn together, work
together, forge new ties that bind together." Few Americans
would dispute this vision, but it is not merely individual attitudes
that govern the tolerance of diversity in our communities. Institutions
and their rules play a major role in relations among people, and
one of the most significant rules in a community is the one determining
how citizens can win and sustain legislative representation and
a fair share of power in a competitive electoral environment.
Just as consumer choice and buying power are the foundation of
a free market economy, citizen choices and voting power are at
the foundation of a responsive and inclusive democracy. The rules
governing citizens' choices and voting power have a great impact
on who runs, who votes and who wins. Unfortunately, most American
cities use antiquated "winner-take-all" rules that too
often divide us and undercut accountability. Despite the president's
charge to keep our democracy young, we all too easily accept these
electoral rules simply because we inherited them. Indeed, President
Clinton himself in 1993 cut short a healthy national debate about
our general use of winner-take-all elections when he withdrew
his nomination of University of Pennsylvania law professor Lani
Guinier to head the civil rights division of the Justice Department.
To increase turnout and diversify representation Guinier had proposed
consideration of proportional and semi-proportional representation
voting systems and even more challenging ideas about ensuring
minority influence in legislative bodies. Even though most mature
democracies use proportional systems and even though the Justice
Department under Presidents Reagan and Bush had upheld their adoption
in many communities, she was demonized as a "quota queen"
and never given a chance to explain her writings in a congressional
hearing. Recent city elections show that Guinier's concerns about
representation and participation are valid. Turnout continued
its plunge in elections around the country this year. In New York
City's Democratic primary -- a primary that decided mayoral nominees
and the de facto winners for most city council seats -- turnout
among registered Democrats was only 18%. Detroit's mayoral primary
turnout was 17%; in Charlotte, it was 6.4%. General election turnout
was under 40% in Miami and New York City and under 30% in Boston.
Incumbents generally won in walkover elections, with one party
holding near-monopoly control in many city councils. Our city
halls are more racially diverse than they were a generation ago
-- in part because of demographic changes, in part because of
implementation of the Voting Rights Act and in part because of
decreasing racism. Now the Supreme Court has put severe limitations
on traditional methods of increasing representation of black,
Latino, Asian and Native American voters through redistricting
wards to have majorities of targeted minority voters. Many cities
may have less diverse representatives after the next redistricting
in 2001. Regardless, they could face expensive legal battles from
plaintiffs on both sides of the controversy. But even in ward
elections drawn to encourage representation of racial minorities,
winner-take-all rules put geographic straitjackets on diversity
and restrict accountability by limiting competition. In contrast,
non-winner-take-all voting systems -- historically called "proportional
representation," but perhaps better understood as "full
representation" -- promote a more modern, cosmopolitan vision
of a city. Representatives are more likely to emerge from communities
of interest than personal ambition. At the same time, the major
political forces are more likely to support candidates that represent
these different communities such that a political force's slate
of candidates fully represents the "big tent" of voters
from whom it seeks support. As a result, city councils are more
likely to represent a "gorgeous mosaic" of overlapping
interests and groups. Cities become all the stronger and more
stable by giving diverse communities real incentives to participate
and realistic access to the making of public policy. Electing
the candidate who wins the most votes in a given area reflects
a crude understanding of elections. True, winner-take-all elections
were how the early democracies held elections, but their serious
limitations have led most democracies to reject them. There is
a range of proportional voting systems -- some candidate-based
and some party-based, some with a mix of wards, some in relatively
small multi-seat districts and some citywide ---- but nearly every
political jurisdiction in the United States rather blindly follows
traditional winner-take-all models. As we head toward the 21st
century, it is high time that we re-examine our 18th-century electoral
rules.
What is Proportional Representation?
Proportional representation (PR) is a principle of representative
democracy, not a particular voting mechanism. Most mature democracies
use forms of PR, although they vary widely in the threshold of
votes necessary to win representation and the relative role of
political parties: important differences that mean PR cannot be
judged by its performance in any one nation or city. Of the 36
nations with at least two million people and a top rating from
the human rights organization Freedom House, 30 use PR systems
for their central national legislature; only the United States,
Canada and Jamaica exclusively use winner-take-all elections for
all national elections. PR can have a positive impact on campaign
conduct, the fairness of representation, voter turnout, the role
of money in politics and governance. The principle of proportional
representation is that groups of like-minded voters (partisan
or non-partisan) should win seats in legislative assemblies in
proportion to their share of the popular vote. With PR the majority
wins its right to decide, but a minority wins its fair share at
the table of representation. Thus, in a city council election
for nine seats, a political force with at least ten percent of
voters throughout the city should earn one seat. A force with
51% support should earn five seats, and so on. Another way to
understand PR is that most voters will elect a candidate of their
choice: the more voters who have the opportunity to elect candidates
of choice, the "fuller" the results will be. In contrast,
U.S.-style winner-take-all elections allow a majority (or even
a simple plurality) of voters in a given geographically-defined
district -- a district usually created to achieve certain political
results -- to win all the representation for that area. In an
at-large, winner-take-all election, one group of voters can elect
nearly all the winners. Adoption of single-member ward elections
may break up a citywide majority, but it simply transfers distorted
representation down to a neighborhood level. When one winner "takes
all" in a ward election, 51% of voters (and less when there
are more than two strong candidates) win the right to speak for
the other 49%. Proportional representation systems can be party-based,
as in much of Europe and in South Africa in its 1994 elections.
They also can be completely non-partisan, as in city council elections
in Cambridge, Massachusetts, and Peoria, Illinois. Historically,
the National Civic League has most strongly supported "the
single transferable vote" -- a system also known as "preference
voting" and "choice voting" because voters rank
candidates in order of preference. Choice voting was included
in the League's model city charter for much of this century, and
at one time was used for city council elections in New York, Cincinnati
and Cleveland. Other non-winner-take-all systems currently used
in the United States are cumulative voting and limited voting
(see sidebar).
General Benefits of Proportional Representation
Comparative political scientists have attributed a number
of benefits to use of proportional representation (PR). Among
them are:
* Voter participation: Voter turnout is generally 10% to 15%
higher in nations that have PR than in similar nations using plurality
elections. This difference is logical. In the United States, a
majority of legislative elections are not competitive. The average
margin of victory in U.S. House elections is consistently over
30%. Usually, the lower the level of election, the lower the level
of competition and participation. One-third of state legislative
elections consistently do not draw even two major party candidate.
Most cities have little real competition in council races; in
1997, only one of New York City's 51 city council seats was closer
than a 10% victory margin, and all 45 Democratic winners received
"landslide" percentages of over 60%. The sad reality
is that voters in non-competitive wards -- whether in the majority
or in the minority -- might better use their time and resources
to send a check to candidates they like in more competitive races
rather than vote in their own. In PR systems, winning fair representation
is dependent on voter turnout. When nearly every vote will help
a party win more seats -- regardless of a party's level of support
in a particular area -- voters have more incentive to participate,
and parties have every incentive to mobilize their supporters.
Perhaps just as importantly, parties and other electoral organizations
have every incentive to keep their supporters informed in order
to hold onto their support; studies show that informed citizens
are more likely to vote.
* Fair minority representation: When winning seats does not
require a majority of the vote, minorities of all kinds by definition
have a better opportunity to elect candidates of their choice.
Indeed, the history of proportional representation around the
world and when used in the United States is an excellent one for
representation of minorities. And fair minority representation
means better majority representation because together different
minorities can constitute a majority. In addition to winning a
fair share of seats, minorities also have greater opportunities
to negotiate for influence, since they have more options for whom
to vote. When South Africa held elections using PR in 1994, the
two leading parties ran multi-racial slates with messages of inclusion.
When New Zealand had its first PR election in 1996, the first
Asian citizen was elected, and Pacific Islanders and indigenous
Maori tripled their representation. In addition, a Maori-backed
party formed a coalition government with the governing party --
a party that in recent years had had few Maori representatives,
in a way analogous to the Republican Party's relationship with
blacks in the United States. PR has the twin benefits of encouraging
minority communities to mobilize and giving them access to power.
From 1925 to 1955, Cincinnati used the choice voting form of PR
to elect a nine-seat city council. In 1929, when blacks were barely
10% of the population, a black independent candidate ran a strong
campaign. In the next election, he was added to the Republican
party's slate and was elected. In 1947, when blacks were 15% of
the population, a former president of the Cincinnati NAACP ran
in large part to defend the choice voting system that was under
attack from Republicans seeking to restore their old domination
of the council. In a recognition that any substantial group of
voters could not be ignored, the other major slate (the Charter-Democrats)
added him to their slate in 1949. He was elected, resulting in
black representatives holding two of nine seats for the next four
years. For the remaining choice voting elections, both parties
competed for the black vote.
* More women in office: The percentage of women elected to
office in the United States -- only 11% of the U.S. Congress --
is scandalously low, particularly in light of the relative strength
of the American women's movement compared to other nations and
particularly when studies show that women legislators do often
provide substantively different representation. Although the connection
is less conclusive for local elections, studies show that women
in state legislative elections win seats in significantly higher
percentages in multi-seat districts than in one-seat districts
-- double in some states with a mix of systems. The major reasons
for this difference are that women are more likely to run and
voters are more likely to seek gender balance when there is more
than one seat to fill. PR systems give women additional leverage
to force the major parties to support more women candidates because
women have an opportunity to vote for smaller, more women-friendly
parties. A threat to do so by women supporters of the major parties
in Sweden in 1994 led to an increase of women in the legislature
to 41%. New Zealand and Germany are among a growing number of
democracies that use systems with a mix of district and PR seats.
Instructively, women are three times more likely to win seats
elected by PR than elected in one-seat districts. In 1996 in New
Zealand, women won 45% of PR seats and 15% of districts seats;
in 1994 in Germany, women won 39% of PR seats and only 13% of
district seats.
* Elimination of gerrymandering: Drawing district lines to
influence who wins has taken place virtually from the first redistricting
-- the term "gerrymander" refers to a Massachusetts
district plan drawn in 1815. But gerrymandering has become far
more potent in an era of powerful computers, more detailed census
information and better techniques for measuring voter preferences.
As one example, Democrats in control of the redistricting process
in Texas in 1991 placed the eight Republican incumbents in districts
that were among the most conservative in the nation. These incumbents
were easily re-elected in 1992, but Democrats won 21 of the remaining
22 seats with only 50% of the statewide vote. Only one race was
won by less than 10%, and the three open seats went to state legislators
serving on redistricting committees. Congresswoman Eddie Bernice
Johnson, the primary architect of the plan, admitted in 1997 that
the redistricting process "is not one of kindness. It is
not one of sharing. It is a power grab." Although political
intentions can be removed from the redistricting process, as in
Iowa's process, political results are unavoidable -- some districts
inevitably will be non-competitive. Gerrymandering of any sort
is much more difficult with PR systems. The fewer the percentage
of votes that can be "wasted" on losing candidates --
49% in a winner-take-all race, but less than 20% in a five-seat
PR election -- the more likely the voters will be the ones who
choose their representatives rather than legislators choosing
their constituents through gerrymandering.
* Governance from the center with representation of the wings:
The core principle of PR is that a majority should decide a policy
issue after a debate of the whole. Like a town meeting, debate
should include as many voices as possible without disrupting efficiency.
Unlike many town meetings -- where policies are often debated
and decided in one night -- this debate takes place in the context
of a deliberative, legislative process in which issues are fully
discussed and opportunities to negotiate are plentiful. One clear
difference between PR and most winner-take-all elections is that
in PR election, both major parties -- and perhaps smaller parties
-- likely will win representation from the same geographic area.
When the major parties co-exist in a given constituency, all constituents
have access to representatives with both the governing party and
with the main opposition party. No geographic area -- or type
of area, as is now true of American urban areas that have few
Republican representatives -- is likely to be isolated politically.
The Chicago Tribune in 1995 editorialized for the return of the
non-winner-take-all system of cumulative voting in three-seat
districts for state legislative elections (see sidebar). Tribune
editors wrote:
"[Cumulative voting] guaranteed the relative strengths
of the two parties would be reflected in the legislature, but
every region of the state would also have substantial representation
in each party's caucus.... The intermeshing of political and regional
interests has all but disappeared in the 15 years since cumulative
voting was abolished.... [M]any partisans and political independents
have looked back wistfully at the era of cumulative voting. They
acknowledge that it produced some of the best and brightest in
Illinois politics."
The Tribune's remarks point to two other important facts.
First, even a limited modification of winner-take-all voting --
Illinois' three-seat districts still left a high threshold of
25% necessary to win seats -- is likely to have important benefits.
Second, "third" parties and independent political forces
often play a constructive role in governance and campaigns. A
two-party system can be very polarizing, with each side playing
"zero sum" confrontational tactics founded on the fact
that loss of support for one party has nowhere to go but to the
other. Having more choices across the spectrum can break down
that polarization, and allow a governance that more consistently
reflects majority interests. A particularly revealing April 1994
essay in World Politics describes the "Proportionate Influence
Vision" of democracy, in which "elections are designed
to produce legislatures that reflect the preferences of all citizens."
The article contrasts this vision with the "Majority Control
Vision" -- one in which "democratic elections are designed
to create strong, single-party majority governments that are essentially
unconstrained by other parties in the policy-making process."
In their statistical comparison of 12 democracies in Europe regarding
how citizen preferences are translated into public policy, they
concluded that "The governments in the Proportionate Influence
systems are on average significantly closer to their median voter
than are governments in the Majority Control and Mixed systems....If
voters are presented with a wide range of choices and electoral
outcomes are proportional, governments tend to be closer to the
median." In short, governance is more likely to take place
at the center, but fair representation of the wings provides an
ongoing mechanism to shift this center and transform governance.
Opposition voices will be heard, and their ideas are far more
likely to be debated. If their ideas draw growing attention, the
major parties will adjust accordingly in order to hold onto their
supporters.
* Expanding discourse: Winner-take-all elections -- especially
in the present era of attack ads and focus groups -- can make
it extremely difficult to have reasoned political debate on certain
contentious issues. These issues can take on great symbolic weight
for swing voters, who ironically gain the most electoral influence
in our system by being among the relatively few who are detached
from regular support of either party. At this point in our political
history, for example, it is unlikely that a non-incumbent could
run a credible campaign for president or most statewide offices
with a position against the death penalty -- certainly a reasonable
position, even if arguable -- which has come to represent being
"tough" on crime. It is difficult for candidates to
take nuanced positions on a range of issues, from drug policy
to abortion rights to welfare reform. This freezing of debate
makes it all the harder to change policy in the future. When legislative
candidates can be assured of winning despite garnering less than
50% of the vote, it is far easier to have a full and serious dialogue
on such issues in campaigns and in legislatures -- and thus in
the public realm as a whole, since the major media often works
within the confines of the "legitimate" positions of
currently elected officials. The value of calmer, more reasoned
voices perhaps can be symbolized by the movie "Twelve Angry
Men," in which Henry Fonda's quiet skepticism ultimately
results in reversal of the verdict of the eleven other jurors.
This opening of discourse is important not only at a national
and state level, within given legislative districts. One of the
reasons that many districts stay "safe" for one party
is that political debate within these districts can be stifled.
No one takes campaigns in the district seriously, and the second-place
party often writes off the district and puts few resources there.
Franked mail from the legislator offers only one viewpoint. Opposition
views are simply not heard or largely ignored.
How American Electoral Rules Developed
The American founders were at the forefront of intellectual
and scientific thought in the 18th century. The Constitution was
carefully crafted, based on a mix of reasoned debate, empirical
study and states' competing interests. Yet the Constitution is
silent on methods of election for the U.S. Congress. Proportional
representation was not discussed for the very simple reason that
no mechanism had been developed to allow voters in the minority
to elect candidates. The principle was touted -- indeed, John
Adams wrote that "[American legislatures] should be an exact
portrait, in miniature, of the people at large, as it should think,
feel, reason, and act like them." But the only voting systems
available were both winner-take-all: elections in multi-seat districts
-- usually at-large -- and ones in single-member districts. Most
states used statewide elections to elect their U.S. House delegations
during the 1790s. Gradually, more and more states moved to district
elections. One reason was to guarantee local representation, but
for many the move was driven by an interest in better representing
diversity. Statewide elections tended to allow one political party's
candidates to win all the seats, diluting the votes of those in
the minority. Many of these elections were quite close, but one
party would win all. In 1832 and 1834, for example, the Democrats
swept New Jersey's six at-large U.S. House seats despite barely
1,000 votes separating the top Democrat from the lowest Republican
in each election. Reformers sought district elections to diversify
representation. In retrospect, proportional representation systems
would have been the sensible approach, but the first articles
detailing mechanisms of PR were not published until the mid-1840s
and not widely circulated until John Stuart Mill's advocacy in
the 1860s. The most influential early advocate of PR in the United
States was Charles Buckalew, a U.S. Senator from Pennsylva-nia,
1865-1871. Sen. Buckalew's pro-posals gained significant sup-port
in Congress, and he played a central role in the adoption of cumu-lative
voting in several cities and in Illinois for state legislative
elec-tions (see sidebar). But earlier in his career he had been
an advocate of district elections. In an 1867 speech Buckalew
sheds light on the motivations of district reformers and what
might have happened if they had known about PR systems:
"Our experience in this State and in other States is
not in favor of carrying the idea of single districts very far.
I drew the amendment to the Constitution of our State [of Pennsylvania]
by which your city is bro-ken into [sin-gle member] districts.
[Ap-plause] What was the idea of that amendment? It was that one
political interest should not absorb the whole sixteen or eighteen
representatives you send to the Legislature; that a little shift-ing
majority one way or the other should not cast that large number
of votes on one side or the other at Harrisburg. "The idea
was to break up the politi-cal commu-nity, and allow the different
political interests which compose it, by choosing in single districts,
to be repre-sented in the Legislature of the State. Unfortu-nate-ly,
when that arrangement was made for your city (and for Pitts-burgh
also, to which it will soon apply), this just, equal, almost perfect
system of voting [proportional voting], which I have spoken of
tonight, was un-known; it had not then been an-nounced abroad
or considered here, and we did what best we could."
Cities Swinging Between At-Large and Wards
Although most congressional elections have used districts
since 1842, when the first law requiring district elections was
adopted, cities have swung back and forth between at-large and
ward elections. As discussed by Buckalew, major cities largely
moved to ward elections in the 19th century, but by the turn of
the century, many leaders in the progressive movement sought citywide,
at-large elections in order to break up political "machines"
that dominated many cities. The shift back to at-large elections
occurred after proportional representation systems were developed,
and indeed many leading reformers advocated PR rather than winner-take-all
elections. The National Municipal League, Walter Lippman, A. Philip
Randolph, Murray Seasongood, Fiorello La Guardia and League of
Women Voters founder Carrie Chapman Catt were among many influential
advocates of PR, more specifically the choice voting system that
was adopted in numerous cities at that time. Unfortunately, PR
proved more controversial than other elements of the municipal
reform package-- perhaps because of its more decisive impact on
democratizing power. Although choice voting was adopted in several
major cities and upheld in 24 of the first 26 repeal attempts
around the nation, it encountered increasing resistance. New York
City's repeal of choice voting in 1947, after two previously failed
attempts, set off a wave of repeals that by 1961 left Cambridge,
Mass. as the only city with the system. The very strength of choice
voting was a weakness in the post-Cold War period: opponents could
pick on unpopular minorities like leftists and blacks to convince
a majority of voters to reverse their previous support for the
system. Black voters in cities like New York, Cincinnati and Toledo
voted to keep choice voting, but were out-numbered. Since the
1960s the national pendulum has swung back toward ward elections,
but this time without nearly as much debate over PR. The new wave
of reformers saw the early 20th century municipal reformers as
elitists, more concerned about downtown business interests than
those of neighborhoods and minorities. Residential segregation
by race in many cities made ward elections an obvious solution
for those interested in racial diversity on councils. The allure
of guaranteed representation of all parts of a city was powerful,
even if historical memory about the problems of ward elections
in cities was short and neglect of the problems with district
elections at other levels of government was troubling. Indeed,
ward elections have been disappointing to many in such cities
as Oakland and Boston, but more cities keep adopting wards out
of frustration with winner-take-all, at-large systems.
The Modern Case for Proportional Representation in Cities
Proportional representation allows cities to have the best
of ward elections and the best of at-large elections. In contrast
to at-large elections, diverse voters can win their fair share
of representation. Campaigns are less expensive because it takes
fewer votes to win, and candidates can choose to focus their campaigns
on particular constituencies. In contrast to ward elections, however,
those seeking representation are not required to be geographically
concentrated. Representatives can work side by side with the same
constituents, and citywide policy is less likely to be left to
mayors and city managers. There are particularly good reasons
to consider PR systems as we head into a new century of increasing
diversity and residential dispersion of minorities in cities.
Several cities had bitter and expensive battles over drawing single-member
district lines after the 1990 census. In cities like New York,
Oakland, Los Angeles and Chicago, blacks, Latinos, and whites
fought over redistricting; the resulting court battle in Chicago
cost taxpayers $10 million to defend a ward plan despite the fact
that its intended impact was to protect incumbents and stifle
competition. Battles over district lines promise to be only more
contentious after the year 2000, both because of rising diversity
(with Asian Americans having a significantly greater presence
in many cities), decreasing residential segregation and recent
Supreme Court rulings that make "creative" redistricting
all the more difficult. Already some minority leaders are re-thinking
reliance on wards. When faced with the choice between ward elections
and choice voting in San Francisco in 1996, the Mexican-American
Legal Defense and Education Fund supported choice voting. Austin's
at-large system is under review, and several leading black political
leaders have expressed support for choice voting rather than wards.
While fair minority representation may be the most immediate reason
to consider proportional systems, there are additional compelling
arguments. One is that cities need innovative leadership. Too
many cities have static elections in which voters have little
ability to vote for change -- or if they do vote for change, it
is greater than they might want. Ward elections also can keep
most representatives focused on ward issues, leaving citywide
policy-making more to mayors and city managers who by definition
cannot be fully representative of the community. Proportional
systems certainly can open a closed political system. In 1935,
Democrats backed by Tammany Hall won 62 of 65 city council seats
in New York City. After adopting choice voting in 1936, Democrats
barely won a majority. Although maintaining their majority in
five choice voting elections, they faced serious competition from
four other parties and from reformers from within. After restoring
ward elections, the Democrats won all but one seat in the first
elections with districts in 1949. Democrats have dominated council
elections ever since. Many municipal reformers for understandable
reasons also are seeking campaign finance reforms. But taking
the money out is only an initial step. One also must put the people
in, and the full representation provided by PR systems enables
people to come together, organize, voice their interests and have
a fair chance to win and sustain representation. They create a
new space for community organization and independent representation.
A Growing Movement
Grassroots activity in support of proportional representation
has grown dramatically in recent years. At a national level, Rep.
Cynthia McKinney (D-GA) has introduced the Voters' Choice Act
to allow PR systems for congressional elections. At a news conference
when the bill was first introduced in 1995, speakers included
the directors of the National Women's Political Caucus, U.S. Term
Limits and the Committee for the Study of the American Electorate.
Grassroots activists and civic leaders are raising the idea of
PR in numerous states and cities. The black caucus in Georgia's
state legislature has introduced bills to adopt PR for its congressional
elections and held hearings around the state in the fall of 1997.
An elections task force in North Carolina gave bi-partisan support
to a bill to allow localities to adopt PR systems. Texas in 1995
approved allowing school districts to use PR systems, and more
than 40 Texas localities have adopted cumulative voting to settle
voting rights suits. The ACLU of Washington has adopted a policy
in support of lifting all legal restrictions on using PR for local,
state and federal elections. Boston's leading black elected officials
support PR for city council elections, the Center for Voting and
Democracy has been asked to testify about PR before charter commissions
and task forces in such localities as Cincinnati, Detroit, Miami
Beach, Nassau County and San Francisco. Activists are planning
initiative campaigns for PR for state or local elections in Alaska,
Arizona, California, Colorado, Hawaii, Illinois, Maine, Massachusetts,
Michigan, Minnesota, New Mexico, New York, Ohio, Oregon, Rhode
Island, Washington and Washington, D.C. Such initiative campaigns
have real opportunities for success. In Cincinnati in 1988 and
1991, under-funded initiatives to restore choice voting for city
council elections each gained 45% of the vote. After a two-year
study in San Francisco, a task force recommended that choice voting
replace the city's winner-take-all, at-large system. The Board
of Supervisors in July 1996 voted 10-1 to place choice voting
on the November ballot. It also voted 7-4 to put single-member
districts on the ballot. San Francisco would have been the first
American city to adopt a PR system by popular vote since the 1950s.
The community coalition that rallied around choice voting indicate
where support may be found for future PR efforts. Choice voting
picked up early support in communities of color -- several leaders
in these communities recognized that their voting power would
be enhanced by choice voting more than by ward elections. Choice
voting won the endorsement of the Democratic Party, the San Francisco
Examiner, MALDEF, NOW, the largest Bay Area labor unions (including
SEIU Locals 790 and 250, the ILWU and HERE), Mayor Willie Brown
and leading city organizations representing tenants, environmentalists,
Asians, gays and lesbians. In the election, choice voting was
defeated 56%-44%, and wards were adopted by 57%-43%. Exit polls
revealed that choice voting won more than 75% support from black
votes and a higher percentage of support from Latinos, Asian Americans
and self-identified liberals than did the ward proposal. Wards
won due to greater support from moderates and conservatives who
were less influenced by the mostly liberal-leaning endorsements.
The quickly-organized campaign for choice voting was able to win
over many community leaders and organizations, but its budget
of less than $30,000 was not enough to reach enough of the city's
600,000 eligible voters in a short campaign for an idea that was
new to most San Franciscans and received limited media coverage.
Building a Democracy for the 21st Century
In the language of Alvin Toffler, we have entered a third
wave, an information era in which old technologies and institutions
may be quickly superseded by new institutions. Yet we grasp desperately
onto a conception of representation that has decreasing relevance
to our society. Our communities of interest are increasingly non-geographic,
but more cities keep moving to council representation based solely
on geography -- a move that tends to decrease the citywide influence
of the one elected institution in which representation of diversity
and real deliberation is possible. The growing diversity of our
cities is forced into wards that represent diversity well only
when communities stay segregated and racial and ethnic groups
stay uniform. Proportional representation holds the promise of
representing existing diversity while at the same time encouraging
new political forces to develop, voice their interests and earn
a place at the table. PR certainly is a way out of the legal and
political battles over redistricting, but more fundamentally,
it is about providing "universal coverage" for minority
representation in a manner analogous to how Social Security protects
low-income seniors through helping all seniors. "Everybody
wins" sounds too good to be true, but it is the logic of
a proportional system. With all substantial political forces winning
a fair share of representation and with parties in power likely
to reach out to include candidates from these forces, policy-making
will more naturally reflect the united will of the community.
Any efforts to bring people together in a community to solve problems
will be reinforced by ensuring that most of these people having
strong representation in elected government. New rules are never
the answer in themselves. But they create the foundation from
which to build, the form into which people can provide content.
As they confront sinking participation, struggles over a shrinking
tax base and controversies over fair representation, cities have
a great opportunity going into a new century: the opportunity
to consider a full range of democratic reforms to enable their
people to debate and make policy to build healthy communities.
The fundamentally fair level playing field of full and proportional
representation will be an essential part of any reform package.
The Center for Voting and Democracy 6930 Carroll Ave. Suite
901 Takoma Park, MD 20912 (301) 270-4616, cvdusa@aol.com, www.fairvote.org/
Politics
watch