Proportional apportionment vs. proportional representation
May 25th, 2007
Jack
Jack Santucci was FairVote staff from 2005-07.
Some of us on a blog somewhere have been talking about the usefulness of the word “proportional” in advocating for proportional systems. One reason proportional voting can be difficult to explain is, in America, it has a second, older meaning.
Today’s Politico.com commemorates the sitting of the Constitutional Convention in 1787:
Delegates from the large states found themselves at odds with the small ones over how to apportion the legislative branch. The compromise called for a bicameral system, with proportional representation in the lower house and equal representation (two senators per state) in the upper house. All revenue measures would originate in the lower house.
Proportional representation, proportional voting or just plain “PR” debuted some time in the middle to late 1800s. This later PR - and the one we learn about in Intro to Comparative Politics - is about parties receiving the same percentages of seats as they win in votes.
When talking to non-poli sci majors about PR, I often get: “Don’t we already have that?” They mean proportional representation a la Politico. Or more precisely, apportionment of seats in proportion to state population. Every member of the U.S. House theoretically has the same number of constituents. In the old days, before we all used single-member districts, there was the question of how many Reps each state should elect. The answer was: in proportion (to population). One of my first tasks at FairVote was to find in the Federalist every occurrence of the term “proportional representation.” There were five, six or seven - I don’t remember - but this ‘old sense’ of the word was the intended one.
With winner-take-all elections, proportionality of population doesn’t translate to proportionality of seats to votes for either party. Whence one key normative question: what’s a fair electoral system?
Several Founding Fathers came up with formulas for determining what proportion of Reps each state would get: the Jefferson, Hamilton and Webster methods, for instance. More interesting: these formulas are extremely similar to later formulas used in the other kind of proportional representation (to apportion seats by party, you might say on the Continent).
Other posts by Jack
- Understanding progressives' presidential picks - June 26th, 2007
- Ontario MMP vote hits U.S. blogosphere - June 22nd, 2007
- Fatah calls for proportional voting in Palestine - June 22nd, 2007
- Fifth annual Democratic IRV straw poll - June 21st, 2007
- McCain: Front-loaded primary schedule is "bizarre" - June 19th, 2007
- Back at Take Back - June 18th, 2007
- Turkey, women and PR lists - June 6th, 2007
- Ontario MMP video roundup - May 31st, 2007
- Open thread: Ranked voting activism - May 28th, 2007
- Proportional apportionment vs. proportional representation - May 25th, 2007
May 26th, 2007 at 12:17 pm
True enough. Add this to the notion that “proportional representation” means “quotas” (especially racial quotas). And the notion that there’s something foreign about it (”isn’t that what they have in Italy?”). And — maybe — the notion that there’s something just too geeky about the whole subject.
Is it better to risk creating even more confusion by coining new terms, or is it better to accept the historical baggage that all language carries around with it and use existing terminology that already says what we mean?
While we’re on the subject of language: With winner-take-all elections, proportionality of population doesn’t translate to proportionality of seats to votes for either party. Let’s train ourselves to say “any party” instead of “either party”, and “multipartisan” or “nonpartisan” (depending on context) instead of “bipartisan”.
May 27th, 2007 at 6:38 pm
If we pointed out that the debate over electoral reform was about whether to adopt the “Jefferson” method or the “Webster” method, maybe we’d get a bit more traction.
May 28th, 2007 at 12:54 pm
I suspect state-based list PR with the d’Hond… excuse me… Jefferson’s method would earn more traction with changemakers.
May 28th, 2007 at 6:23 pm
Both in my comment above, and in the brief exchange on Fruits and Votes that got Jack started here, I left out one of the most common and important confusions about what you’re talking about when you say “proportional representation”. This is the notion that PR is the same thing as parliamentary government.
I recently heard a well-informed activist (a major party candidate for statewide office, in fact) assert that the U.K. has PR; in his mind, all parliamentary systems have PR. And I’ve heard the converse — PR isn’t possible in the U.S. because we have an elected executive — more times than I can count.
May 30th, 2007 at 12:55 am
Yes, even when I speak to my coworkers, friends, or aquintences about proportional representation, they think I’m talking about height! So I’ve since used the term fair representation, then use an example like “..where fifty percent of the vote gets you fifty percent of the seats..”, They get it. I realize this is a simplification of the process, in regards to STV etc, but it seems to give the general idea.
May 30th, 2007 at 10:20 am
Joel’s comment is very interesting. If I’m not mistaken, FairVote gave some thought to substituting either “fair representation” or “full representation” (I forget which) for “proportional representation” but dropped the idea. (Someone please correct my facts here.) Joel seems to feel that the substitution helps.
Generally I’m sceptical about relabeling things that already have acceptable names, but this makes me wonder.
I think “… where fifty percent of the votes gets you fifty percent of the seats …” is exactly the right first sentence. Then you have to show that SMD’s can’t provide it, and why not, because people genuinely don’t realize this fact.
May 30th, 2007 at 10:38 am
Bob, you’re right. FV did use full rep for a while.
I variously begin explanations with 10% or 50%. 50% is better for people more concerned with majority rule over proportionality. 10% the reverse.
June 21st, 2007 at 8:17 pm
In order for the United States to adopt a proportional system right now for choosing the U.S. House, does a new law need to be formed at the federal level or at the state level? If the state of Alabama should happen to go to proportional voting, will the U.S. Supreme Court object?
June 21st, 2007 at 11:43 pm
Federal level. 2 USC 2c. Amending that will permit states to elect members in whatever size districts they want (up to the apportioned number of reps, of course).
June 22nd, 2007 at 1:16 pm
Amending that will permit states to elect members in whatever size districts they want (up to the apportioned number of reps, of course).
And retain winner-take-all?
Pennsylvania could make a one-member district in part of Philadelphia and elect the other eighteen members on a single mega-district on an at-large basis.All eighteen would most likely belong to the same party, most likely Republican, since the Democrats’ possible margin of victory has been detached.
Multi-member districts should be allowed only with STV or cumulative voting.
June 22nd, 2007 at 1:22 pm
1P1V and the Voting Rights Act are two serious brakes on the extent to which any state could retain winner-take-all with MMD. I think the days of winner-take-all, at-large for Congressional elections are over. They have a long history of being undesirable, going back even into the late 18th century. Steve Hill’s Fixing Elections has a good, brief discussion of that.
June 22nd, 2007 at 4:13 pm
Does Congress have the authority to do as John O’Brien suggests — restrict the use of MMDs to STV and cumulative voting? I can’t think of any reason why not, but I thought I’d ask.
(On a different topic, I’d want mixed-member proportional to be on the list of options for larger states.)
June 22nd, 2007 at 10:48 pm
Pennsylvania could make a one-member district in part of Philadelphia and elect the other eighteen members on a single mega-district on an at-large basis.All eighteen would most likely belong to the same party, most likely Republican, since the Democrats’ possible margin of victory has been detached.
Is there some way to create an at large district comprised of 18 reps that would have an even chance of producing representation from both parties? Would I be right in my calculation that if the Green Party or Libertarian party picked up 5.26% of the vote in the at large 18 super district, that they’d get at least one seat in congress?
Does anyone have a prediction on what state would go to proportional representation first if we moved away from winner take all? I’m guessing New Hampshire since they have superb representation at the state level, or California.
Texas is too Gerrymandered to push through a major initiative.
June 23rd, 2007 at 10:10 am
Justin asks a couple of important questions. Is there some way to create an at large district comprised of 18 reps that would have an even chance of producing representation from both parties?
There are several ways in use around the world. There are also several ways to get it wrong, including the way we usually do at-large elections in the U.S. (”block voting” or “vote for N”), which is intended to have the opposite result.
Would I be right in my calculation that if the Green Party or Libertarian party picked up 5.26% of the vote in the at large 18 super district, that they’d get at least one seat in congress? This percentage, called the “threshold of representation” depends on the details of the method. In the most general case, yes, for an 18-seat district, 1/19 = 5.26%.
Does anyone have a prediction on what state would go to proportional representation first if we moved away from winner take all? I’m guessing New Hampshire since they have superb representation at the state level, or California.
Proportional voting will almost certainly be implemented at local government level first, then state government, then national government.
Among the large states, California is probably the furthest along in terms of reform. Take a look at this proposal; it’s for the state legislature rather than Congress, but the principle is the same.
June 23rd, 2007 at 11:41 am
I can’t think of any reason why not either, Bob. Congress does, after all, control the time, apportion and manner of election. And FairVote does like districts-plus (or MMP) as a potential for state-based reform.
It’s hard to imagine any 18-member proportional voting district precluding two-party representation. That truly would be a gerrymander! But the effective threshold in such a district would depend on the voting system used in it. 5.26% sounds about right for a choice voting threshold there.
June 24th, 2007 at 12:46 pm
Has anyone noticed the parallel between winner take all elections and that the same formula is used to determine the chairman of the board at most coprorations?
On another note, what state has the lead now in moving towards PR elected officials in its state government, and which states are in the front lines for PR elections at the national level in the United States?
Anyone with comments on Hawaii?
June 25th, 2007 at 1:29 am
I’d say California is the farthest along to statewide PR in terms of breadth of awareness and strength of reform capacity. But the longest histories of proportional voting are around the Midwest — Illinois under CV being the best example.
Hawaii was one of the last states electing its Congressional delegation at-large — right up to the banning of MMDs, if I’m not mistaken.
June 26th, 2007 at 6:05 pm
I appreciate the California article Bob.
I liked this part the best, “California should elect its Assembly in sixteen 5-seat districts and its Senate in eight 5-seat districts, all elected proportionally using a ranked-voting similar to that recently adopted in San Francisco, and more commonly used throughout the world.”
The winner take all system could be encouraging the migration of Hispanics into various districts throughout California to get the majority and get a represenative. If we had a PR system, they’d have more represnation without this.
Off subject, but doesn’t this recent idea floating around to give amnesty to those illegals in the United States, only create a sudden surge of them through our southern border? If you are from outside, and someone says, we are thinking of granting you blanket citizenship without going through and learning United States History, learning the constitution, learning English, and learning some basic knowledge, doesn’t this just have invite written all over it? I heard on NPR that the average wage in Mexico is $80 a week and that citizens living there are worried about seeing so many friends leave for the states, and that it is hurting their families, and it almost forces families who remain to consider a move themselves. They also said the Mexican attitude towards its government is apathetic, with a sense that it lacks the will, or desire to do anything about the problem, and it pays little more than lip service to the shrinking taxpayer base they have there, which ultimately will lead to higher taxes on those left behind.
June 26th, 2007 at 7:23 pm
Way, way off topic, Justin. Migration patterns are driven by economics, not politics. And if an ethnic (or ideological) group ever did want to migrate for the purpose of increasing its political influence, our single-member district system would compel them to concentrate themselves in a small number of districts where they could become a near-majority. And then their efforts might be undone by the next gerryman … I mean, redistricting.
You’re very right about one thing, though. Minority groups are much better off with proportional voting.