There is an important political reform that nobody knows about, said Douglas Amy of Mount Holyoke College during a guest lecture in Harbor Hall on March 21.
Amy’s argument is the current system of having small local districts electing a single member to represent them in Washington is flawed. The current system, while there is a strong degree of local connection, actually leads to less representation from members of Congress, he said.
In the United States, someone seeking office only has to garner a plurality of the vote to be elected. Due to the way that the Congressional districts are drawn this leads to “wasted” votes cast by Democrats in Republican districts, vice versa, or by any member of a third party.
In a hypothetical election, a Democratic candidate could win 53 percent of the vote compared to the Republican 47 percent, which results in 47 percent of that district not being represented.
However, if in the same district a Green Party candidate also runs, the Republican wins with 47 percent; the Democrat and Green candidate lose with 40 and 13 percent respectively, resulting in 53 percent lacking representation.
The United States could adopt a proportional representation system that would be made up of significantly larger districts that would send multiple representatives to Washington, DC, Amy said. In another scenario in one of these hypothetical districts the vote breakdown by party is as follows: 41 percent Democrat, 39 percent Republican, 11 percent Libertarian and 9 percent Green.
The District in this scenario has 10 seats to allocate. Under Amy’s argument Democrats and Republicans would both receive four seats while the Libertarian and Green parties would both receive one seat in Congress.
Casting ballots would be slightly different than the current system. When one entered the ballot box they would be presented with a ballot that was divided by party. The voter would choose a member of the “party slate.” This would allow people to be Claude Pepper Democrats, Bill Nelson Democrats, Lawton Chiles Democrats or Kendrick Meek Democrats.
A vote for any of these candidates would result in a vote for the Democratic Party. When the votes were totaled, the leading candidates would represent the district on a proportional basis. If the Democrats won four seats, the top four vote-attracters among the party would represent the district. This allows for more choice within a political party.
Amy said that because a representative’s district is larger than the Congressional districts the U.S. currently has, that re-districting would not be as hotly contested because everybody would receive representation proportionally. Third parties could receive more support than they currently have due to proportional representation. Not everybody in the country is a Democrat or Republican; however, everybody in the legislature is or caucuses with one.
Advantages of the proposed system would result in more intra-party choice, Amy said. The nomination of more women and minority candidates, and a larger voter turnout would result from a move to proportional representation.
Additionally, the system change would not result in a shift to parliamentary system of governance (the kind that could be found in most former British colonies). The United States could retain its current form of governance and the Senate would remain largely the same, Amy said.
