Common Concerns about the Voters' Choice Act (HR 3068)
A Center for Voting and Democracy Factsheet
Would the Voters' Choice Act require states to change their electoral system?
No. The Act would restore to states different options for electing their
representatives. It removes a mandate established in 1967 that requires use of
single-member districts.
Do proportional systems and cumulative voting violate the "one person, one
vote" rule? No. "One person, one vote" means that voters have
equal voting power, not that voters have only one vote. Tens of thousands of offices in
the United States -- including many state legislative seats -- are elected in multi-seat
districts where voters have more than one vote. The Department of Justice under both
Republican and Democratic presidents has upheld numerous local requests to use
proportional systems.
Would states be able to use traditional at-large voting and manipulate election
results? No. States will be able to use multi-member districts if and only if
they use a proportional or semi-proportional voting system. The highest permitted
threshold of representation (i.e., the maximum percentage of votes a candidate can obtain
without winning) is one-third of votes cast. States could establish a threshold of
representation lower than one-third of votes. Given that at least two-thirds of voters
will always be able to elect candidates, partisan manipulation of reapportionment would be
more difficult than with single-member district systems in which only one-half of voters
are always able to elect candidates.
Would multi-seat districts make campaigns harder and more expensive? No. Proportional
systems in fact would minimize the electoral impact of campaign spending. Candidates would
be able to win with a lower percentage of votes. In district elections with a 50%
threshold, most money is spent on the relatively few "swing voters" who are
willing to vote for either major party candidate. Given that most voters do not switch
votes based on campaign spending, candidates in proportional systems could focus more on
"get-out-the-vote" organizing efforts than expensive "persuasion"
advertisements. Candidates from the same party also would be able to campaign as a team,
sharing campaign costs.
Would larger districts make it hard for representatives to handle constituent requests? No.
With more than one representative in a district, a representative would have more
flexibility to specialize in certain areas, including constituent service -- they would
not need to be "all things to all people." Most districts would have bi-partisan
representation and more balanced representation of factions within a major party, meaning
that most voters would be able to approach a representative who generally shares their
views on issues.
Would proportional voting systems be too confusing? No. Proportional systems
are used in many American elections and in most other well-established democracies. Voters
in these elections have no trouble using them -- as evidenced by their high turnout rates.
Some proportional systems are very simple to describe. Others sound complicated when first
described, but experience shows that voters quickly can learn the new rules.
Do proportional systems require a parliamentary system? No. The president
would be elected separately.
Would it be unfair if some states used proportional systems and others did not? No.
There is a long history of states electing their representatives from a mix of multi-seat
districts and single-member districts. Congressional objections to multi-seat districts
have not focused on states using different systems; the driving concern instead has been
that multi-seat districts under-represent minority views when combined with
winner--take-all rules.
Can't a major party representative represent all constituents effectively? Not
on issues. Republican voters are likely to be unhappy with the voting record of a
Democratic representative and vice versa. Proportional systems likely would result in
bi-partisan representation of most districts, meaning that supporters of the major parties
likely would have at least one representative whose voting record generally reflected
their views on issues.
Would proportional systems result in extremists and single-issue candidates dominating
elections? No. The rise of single-issue voters in the United States is largely
a product of our electoral system. A small percentage of voters can determine who wins an
election, and well-organized issue groups with supporters willing to vote for either major
party have used their "swing voter" power very effectively. Proportional systems
weaken the power of the swing voter and in turn strengthen the power of most voters who do
not vote based on single issues and who will not support extremist candidates.
Would the bill give candidates any power to sue a state? No. The bill
requires that states give candidates a fair opportunity to win; it does not ensure victory
for anyone.
Does the language about "a group of voters" imply quotas? No.
"Groups of voters" are defined by how they vote, not by any other
characteristic. The Voters' Choice Act gives such like-minded voters an opportunity to win
a fair share of seats, but no guarantee.
Why aren't we using proportional systems if they work so well? We are. Proportional
systems are used for many elections in the United States. Two cities use choice voting.
More than 60 localities use cumulative voting, and more than 100 localities use limited
voting. Until 1980, Illinois used cumulative voting to elect state representatives, and
the Chicago Tribune and many other state leaders support its return.
Proportional systems are used to elect
most delegates to the Democratic national convention and many delegates to the Republican
national convention. Several states require corporations to elect their boards with
cumulative voting. Finally, proportional systems are the norm in most other full-fledged
democracies; the major reason more elections in the United States don't use proportional
voting is that winner-take-all elections were well-established before proportional systems
were even invented.
Don't serious problems in Israel and Italy prove that proportional systems are a
failure? No. Nearly every well-established democracy in the world uses a
proportional system without the problems with coalitions experienced in Italy and Israel.
Experience of proportional systems suggests ways to fine-tune election systems, finding
compromises between the extremes of a one percent threshold for representation (as in
Israel and Italy before 1994) and the 50 percent threshold in a single-member districts.
Representation thresholds as low as four percent still promote two major parties. Most
states would not even have the option to establish a threshold lower than 10%.
Shouldn't we keep a system that we have used for so long? Maybe. The Voters'
Choice Act simply allows states to explore other options. Such exploration certainly is
warranted. Our voter turnout is among the world's lowest. Racial and ethnic diversity is
increasing. The capacity to gerrymander districts for political purposes has increased
dramatically. The power to target swing voters has also increased. More people form
communities of interest that are not defined by where they live, but instead by what they
think.
Given that proportional systems have
proven to increase citizen interest, facilitate less polarized governance and make
government more representative at a local and state level in the United States and at
national levels elsewhere, it is time to treat them as serious options.
Does this bill have any chance of actually passing? Yes. The first law
requiring single-member districts was passed in 1842. It has been repealed and re-enacted
several times; it was not in effect for nearly half this century. Given that the Voters'
Choice Act does not allow the winner-take-all, at-large systems that have been the reason
for enacting the single-member district requirement, there is every reason to believe that
Congress will restore states with choices they have had for much of American history.