Our country is ready to reform our elections. Now is the time for Congress to act. The Fair Representation Act (HR 3863) is the bold, comprehensive solution that solves our problems with partisan gerrymandering and uncompetitive elections, and encourages politicians to represent everyone, not just their base.
Partisan gerrymandering has only gotten worse in an era of sophisticated technology and polarized voting patterns. Redistricting has become a fraught endeavor, replete with corruption, controversy, and years of expensive litigation. Because the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in 2019 that partisan gerrymandering was a political issue beyond the ability of federal courts to decide, an act of Congress is the only way to end gerrymandering in all states.
However, our problems go beyond gerrymandering: Single-winner districts no longer work well for American democracy. They lock most voters into congressional districts that are increasingly skewed toward one party, and leaves too many voters unrepresented and powerless to affect outcomes. Millions of Americans -- whether urban Republicans, red-state Democrats, independents, women and communities of color -- are dramatically underrepresented, with little chance of fixing this at the polls.
The Fair Representation Act helps fix this. Voters would elect representatives with proportional ranked choice voting in larger multi-winner districts. Safe "red" and "blue" districts would be a thing of the past, as every district would elect both Republicans and Democrats in proportion to their level of support. With proportional results, there would be no gerrymandering, every election would be competitive, and our votes would be far more powerful than they are today. Senators would also be elected with ranked choice voting.
With more choices in the general election and proportional outcomes, the Fair Representation Act will create more opportunities for women, people of color, urban Republicans, rural Democrats, and independents.
We must open elections to reflect our full diversity. The Fair Representation Act is the strongest commitment and most complete solution to voter equality, equal representation and greater choice. It’s how we make our democracy work again -- for everyone.
Since 1970, every state has elected only one per district in a winner-take-all election, due to a federal law passed in 1967. The U.S. Constitution does not say how states should elect their Members of the House of Representatives, and states used a variety of methods for most of the nation's history. After half a century of exclusive use of single-winner districts, we need a new standard.
Elections under the single-winner district system are broken:
Elections are not competitive. More than 85% of U.S. House districts are completely safe for the party that holds them. In 2020, the median margin of victory in a congressional race was over 27 percentage points. Millions of Americans are perpetually represented by politicians they oppose, with little hope of changing things at the polls.
The Fair Representation Act can help:
The Fair Representation Act is a proposed federal statute to change elections for Members of Congress. Beginning in 2022, representatives would be elected by proportional ranked choice voting in primary and general elections. Members would be elected in multi-winner districts of up to five seats, with districts being drawn by independent redistricting commissions. Senators would also be elected by ranked choice voting.
The bill consists of three core components:
Ranked choice voting
Requirements for congressional redistricting
The Fair Representation Act requires that primary and general elections for both Representatives and Senators be held with ranked choice voting. The goal of this system is to maximize the number of voters who help elect a candidate.
The ballot will give voters the freedom to rank candidates in order of choice: 1st, 2nd, 3rd and so on.
For the election of only 1 winner (as in Senate elections), if a candidate receives a majority (50% + 1) of the votes, then that candidate will be elected.
For the election of more than 1 member statewide or in a multi-winner district, instead of one candidate winning with more than half the vote, more than one candidate will win, each with their own smaller share of the vote. That makes the system proportional, ensuring that multiple groups of voters can each elect their own representative. The threshold to win depends on the number of winners:
1/2 + 1 vote
1/3 + 1 vote
1/4 + 1 vote
1/5 + 1 vote
1/6 + 1 vote
Votes cast for winning candidates in excess of the threshold (surplus votes) count proportionally for their next choices. Each vote is treated equally and no votes are wasted.
In a round where no one passes the threshold, the candidate in last place is eliminated. If a voter’s top choice loses, their vote will count for their next choice.
This process repeats until all seats are elected.
States will receive $1 million plus $500,000 per representative to pay for election administration and education costs associated with ranked choice voting.
The Fair Representation Act repeals the single-winner district mandate (2 U.S.C. 2c) and replaces it with a multi-winner district mandate applicable to all states that elect more than one Representative.
Any state electing 6 or more members will elect from multi-winner districts. Multi-winner districts may not elect fewer than 3 or more than 5 members each, with an equal number of persons per seat.
For primary elections, each political party will generally nominate candidates equal to the number to be elected in the district, though states may permit parties to choose the number of their nominees. States with “Top Two” primaries will advance twice the number to be elected in the district.
The Fair Representation Act requires that any state drawing multi-winner districts must create an independent redistricting commission to adopt its district map.
The makeup of the commission and its operation is based on the For the People Act, H.R. 1. The commission will ultimately consist of 15 members, 5 each from the majority party, the minority party, and the independent group. All of the procedural requirements in H.R. 1 apply.
After assembling an independent redistricting commission, a state is entitled to $150,000 per representative to offset its costs.
Districts must be drawn according to criteria, in the following order of importance:
compliance with the U.S. Constitution;
consistency with the Voting Rights Act;
providing racial, ethnic and language minorities an equal opportunity to participate in the political process and to elect candidates of choice;
no district can be completely safe for one political party (based on prior presidential vote totals);
as few districts as possible should elect 4 candidates (to avoid frequent 2-2 splits);
as many districts as possible should elect 5 candidates (to maximize proportionality);
as few districts as possible will divide any community of interest, municipality, county or neighborhood.
No district plan may unduly favor or disfavor any political party when considered on a statewide basis.
Each independent redistricting commission must operate transparently. After holding hearings around the state, it will publish preliminary maps, and then hold at least 3 further hearings with opportunities for public comment.
Under the Fair Representation Act, Congress will still be the same size it is now, but the districts will be larger and each will elect 3, 4, or 5 winners. When more than one person wins in a district, more voices in that district can be represented. With proportional ranked choice voting, there will be no "red" or "blue" districts. Voters in the majority will elect most of the winners, but not all of them. Voters in the minority also get a seat at the table.
Below are examples of multi-winner district maps for every state. The states that elect 5 or fewer Representatives will have no districts and elect all statewide. States larger than that are divided into multi-winner districts that elect 3, 4, or 5 winners each. The analysis of each map assumes the state will use ranked choice voting, as required by the Fair Representation Act. Details about how each district map was drawn are below the table.
Click on your state to find out how the Fair Representation Act could transform representation in your state.
|Alabama||Hawaii||Massachusetts||New Mexico||South Dakota|
|Florida||Maine||New Hampshire||Rhode Island||Wisconsin|
|Georgia||Maryland||New Jersey||South Carolina||Wyoming|
To create these maps, FairVote partnered with Kevin Baas, creator of the Auto-Redistrict program. The maps are computer-generated based on user-specified criteria. Because the maps are computer-generated, they cannot take into account communities of interest and other considerations that an independent redistricting commission would. Instead, the program attempted to draw districts that would keep counties intact. We do not claim that these are the actual districts that would be used under the Fair Representation Act. They are examples. We did not attempt to "put our thumb on the scales" to increase fairness in any of these. For more analysis of these districts, see FairVote's Fair Representation Act Report.
Partnering with 13 leading scholarly authorities on electoral reform and legislative functionality, FairVote conducted an in-depth assessment of 37 different structural reforms. Each scholar assessed the impact of each reform on 16 different criteria to assess how it would impact legislative functionality, electoral accountability, voter engagement, and openness of process. The reform at the heart of the Fair Representation Act, ranked choice voting in five-winner districts, was assessed to be the most impactful.
Monopoly Politics exposes the undemocratic and destructive nature of winner-take-all elections to elect "the people's house." Use the interactive map to learn more about our fair voting solution: a plan to combine existing congressional districts into a smaller number of multi-winner "super districts," each electing between three and five Members by ranked choice voting. Read comprehensive analyses about the impact of reform, and descriptions of House elections as they are and as they could be in all 50 states.
The Fair Representation Act Report outlines how multi-winner ranked choice voting will transform the U.S. House of Representatives. Using the model established by the Fair Representation Act, the report simulates the impact of multi-winner ranked choice voting in maps drawn by independent commissions with district maps drawn by the Autoredistrict computer program. It includes a report on the impact on each individual state as well as analysis of the overall impact in making elections more competitive and representative.
Ranked Choice Voting and the Voting Rights Act
Read Drew Spencer and Rob Richie’s analysis of the impact of ranked choice voting in multi-winner districts on the Voting Rights Act.
Ranked Choice Voting and Money in Politics
Analysis on “The Supply Side: Alternative Reform Approaches to Campaign Finance.”
Ranked Choice Voting and Increasing Civility in Politics
Resources and data from comprehensive scholarly analysis of impact of ranked choice voting on the tenor and substance of campaigns in the United States.
HR 3057 (2017) Resources
Here is a video that explains how ranked choice voting works in multi-winner districts:
Congress is broken. Too often, politics is defined by unfair rules that make “the people’s house” unaccountable, ineffective, and disconnected from ordinary voters. Winner-take-all elections are leaving many voters unrepresented, and special interests are drawing districts to manipulate election outcomes. It’s time to put voters in charge. It’s time for fair elections that give Americans an effective and reflective Congress of, by, and for the people.
You can help promote fair representation statewide and locally today. State legislatures can help reform Congress by adopting interstate compacts for fair representation. You can also help to advocate for ranked choice voting in your city or state.