Proportional representation (PR) in the United States refers to the multi-winner proportional electoral systems currently used in several cities and in the Democratic and Republican presidential primary processes.
Cities began adopting PR in the 1910s during the Progressive Era. Historically, PR elected Black candidates in an era defined by Jim Crow laws. PR was gradually repealed in the mid 20th century largely due to backlash to racial and minority political party representation.
Since the 2010s, several electoral reform groups have advocated for the use of proportional representation to elect member of Congress, instead of the current winner-take-all plurality system. PR advocates often see proportional electoral reform as a way to achieve more representation for women and African Americans in Congress, a way to depolarize the American political system, and a way to increase political participation and turnout. Opponents often claim ranked systems, such as STV, are unfair or confusing. The debate over whether to introduce PR, what form to introduce, and in which races is ongoing.
Background
Definitions Proportional representation is achieved by any electoral system under which subgroups of an electorate are reflected proportionately in the elected body. There are multiple systems for this. The main ones include:
Party-list: If a party wins 20% of the vote, it wins 20% of the seats. There are two main forms (open-list and closed-list) of party candidate nominations. Ranked-list proportional representation (RLPR), a party list system with ranked-choice voting (RCV) to determine party list order, has also been proposed in the US but has never been used. Spare vote, considered but not adopted in Germany and New Zealand, could also be used for states with high thresholds. Single transferable vote (STV): As a combination of RCV and PR, voters rank a number of candidates and multiple candidates are elected. Electoral thresholds are typically 1/(n+1) where n is the number of seats up for election (i.e. if there are 4 seats, the threshold would be 20%). Surplus votes are transferred to subsequent rankings. STV does not require political parties. In partisan elections, parties exercise varying control over nominations. Above the line voting used in the Australian Senate allows voters to rank party lists or rank candidates below the line. Mixed-member proportional (MMP): This system combines single-winner geographic districts with at-large "compensatory" seats added to make the seat count proportional to the vote count. MMP retains single-member districts, SMDs, (unlike party-list and STV) but allows for PR in the overall body. MMP's SMDs could use ranked-choice voting but not STV (which requires multiple winners).
The presidential primary nomination process is most similar to party-list, and all cities that have enacted PR have used single transferable vote. MMP has not been used in the United States, but it is occasionally suggested by PR activists.
MMP's compensatory seats may be unconstitutional at the federal level due to a requirement in Article I Section 2 of the US Constitution that congressmembers must be elected by states. Other forms of PR likely would be constitutional and would only require a bill in Congress.
Electoral structure Multiple states ban ranked-choice voting for local elections, which prevents the use of single transferable vote (STV), but not necessarily party-list or MMP systems. Municipalities' ability to alter electoral systems depends on home rule laws. In Minnesota, cities are either statutory or charter cities, and only charter cities are currently able to implement any ranked-choice voting systems.
Most United States House of Representatives seats are elected by plurality vote (the candidate receiving the most votes wins). House seats in Maine and Alaska use ranked-choice voting (RCV) instead of plurality voting. Since the late 1960s, all House congressional districts have been single-member districts due to the Uniform Congressional District Act (UCDA). The current first-past-the-post (FPTP) system does not require a proportional number of seats in relation to votes, and seat allocation may vary widely from votes cast.
Since 1913, after the ratification of the 17th Amendment, US senators have been elected by plurality vote in at-large, statewide elections. Some states use runoffs or RCV instead to elect senators by a majority instead of a plurality. According to a 1992 DOJ memorandum opinion, Senate races must be at-large and may not be broken into two single-member district races.
The president of the United States cannot be elected directly via proportional representation, since the seat is inherently single-winner. In parliamentary systems, the legislature, which may be proportionally elected, chooses the prime minister. The United States is a presidential system with a separation of the legislature and executive. Many Latin American countries elect their legislatures through party-list proportional representation and hold a direct popular vote for president, such as Peru, Chile, and Costa Rica.
History
When the United States Constitution was written, modern PR had not been invented (STV was invented in 1819 and first used in 1856). According to Robert Dahl in How Democratic Is the American Constitution?, winner-take-all was the "only system [the founders] knew." Thomas Jefferson invented a formula for apportioning seats in 1792 (D'Hondt method), now widely used in PR seat calculations, but it was used for House apportionment, not for party proportional representation.
The earliest known essay for proportional representation in the United States was written in 1844 by printmaker Thomas Gilpin and dedicated to the American Philosophical Society. The article argued for "minority representation" in Philadelphia elections in a manner that resembles contemporary party-list systems. Gilpin suggested a Native American party could form under PR as a part of a larger coalition.
In 1867, Simon Sterne presented a proportional representation system to elect members of the New York state legislature during the state's constitutional convention on behalf of the Personal Representation Society of New York. His proposed system would have used a unique "proxy" system with flexible number of legislators and disproportionate voting power among representatives. His proposals were not adopted.
Also in 1867, Senator Charles Buckalew gave two speeches, one on the Senate floor, in support of using cumulative voting, a semi-proportional system, to elect Congress and electors in the Electoral College. In March 1869, Buckalew argued in a report passed by the Select Committee on Representative Reform that the plurality system contributed to the Civil War, since, as he saw it, "Dispersed, unorganized, unrepresented, without due voice and power, [Union men] could interpose no effectual resistance to secession and to civil war." His semi-proportional proposals were not adopted. Buckalew's writings and speeches were compiled in a book in 1872 titled "Proportional representation". The book also documented contemporary PR efforts, including the single transferable vote.
Progressive era The Progressive movement of the early 20th century advocated for a variety of electoral reforms, including proportional representation.
Populist former-Senator William A. Peffer described proportional representation as a "tenet of the People's party creed" in the Advocate in 1897. In the 1898 Populist convention in Topeka, the adopted platform stated, "We demand that the initiative and referendum be embodied in our state constitution and favor proportional representation."
Famous reformers such as John R. Commons advocated for proportional representation to undermine gerrymandering and to elect Black politicians.
In 1908, voters in Oregon passed a ballot initiative allowing for the legislature or other bodies in Oregon to implement proportional representation. The amendment read partially, "...provision may be made by law for elections by equal proportional representation of all the voters for every office which is filled by the election of two or more persons whose official duties, rights and powers are equal and concurrent."
Pivot to cities
In 1913, an initiative to elect representatives via open party-list proportional representation in Los Angeles failed, receiving 48.2% of the vote. The campaign was marked with infighting between socialists who wanted to expand their representation and progressive Republicans who wanted to undermine party influence. A chunk of the progressives were also hesitant to ally with anti-capitalists after a bitter election two years prior.
The Proportional Representation League advocated for the use of single transferable vote, a ranked-choice, proportional vote system, in cities in the 1890sThe two-country base of the PR League is shown by proposal to have the League's executive council composed of one member from each U.S. state and each Canadian province. https://archive.org/details/jstor-1009042/page/n5/mode/2up and the early 20th century. The league preferred at-large proportional representation as opposed to district models. In 1932, the Proportional Representation League merged into the National Municipal League, now known as the National Civic League. The National Municipal League endorsed a move toward the city manager plan and STV in 1914. In Ashtabula, the transition to a city manager plan and PR were seen to go together, as there was concern that a plurality voting system would result in only one party appointing the city manager.
According to Jack Santucci, a Georgetown University professor, when city charter reform occurred, most cities chose plurality at-large (block voting), but cities that chose STV instead had intraparty factions (who wanted to weaken party nominations) that allied with minority parties to pass PR.
Between 1915 and 1962, 22 cities used STV, including Cincinnati, Sacramento, and most notably New York City. The first city to use PR the US was Ashtabula, Ohio in 1915 via referendum.
Progressives in LA were set to vote for their preferred system, STV, in 1922, but the Supreme Court of California struck down Sacramento's STV system days before the election. The court argued the state would require a constitutional amendment to implement the system.
Kalamazoo, Michigan used PR for two elections before the Michigan Supreme Court overturned the system.
In Cincinnati, the City Charter Committee was formed to pass a citywide ballot initiative to institute PR without Republican machine support. Cincinnati's 1925 City Council election had a threshold of 10% of the vote (including after transfers) for a candidate to be elected to one of the nine seats. This required a candidate to receive 11,974 votes. Candidates who were endorsed by the two main factions (Republicans and the Charter) won their races in 1927. The Republicans performed best in the 1929 election after endorsing nine candidates for the city council.
In January 1929, Representative Victor L. Berger introduced a bill to elect the US House of Representatives by proportional representation. The bill did not pass, and Berger died in August the same year in a trolley accident.
In the wake of the Walker scandal, Fiorello La Guardia advocated for a successful referendum to replace gerrymandered districts with STV. New York City's first election using PR was in 1937. The city used a quota system, wherein each borough was entitled to one councilmember for every 75,000 votes cast (plus one more for a remainder of 50,000 or more). Ballot guides were widely distributed during the election, and the system was credited for making it easier to prevent vote tampering and a having a higher percentage of votes going to elect a candidate than the previous single-member district system.
Decline in 1940s-1960s