Democracies legislate. A body of equal citizens, coming together from time to time to make decisions, is a defining feature of every government in history that can call itself a democracy. That’s why it is so troubling that the 113th Congress was able to produce fewer laws than any in history. Wonkish journalists have published many blog posts lamenting the causes of the polarization that has shot down so many compromises, like the 2011 “ grand bargain," which would have gone a long way towards solving our fiscal crisis had it not fallen apart over opposition from an ideological minority. But nobody can say what to do about it. After all, we can’t reduce polarization without convincing the most insistent ideological voters to soften their opinions. This isn’t going to happen. So how can we mitigate their impact on our democratic functions?
One idea: amend the Constitution and move from a “first-past-the-post” system of apportioning representatives in the House and electors in the Electoral College to a "proportional representation" system. Over time, this would empower moderates while regulating extreme voters to the fringe of decision-making, where they belong.
In a first-past-the-post system (what we have), representatives for a deliberative body (like the House of Representatives or the Electoral College) are determined by which candidate achieves the greatest number of votes in a geographic area. In a system of proportional representation (what France has), each political party ranks their candidates for office in a list. Each voter casts a ballot for a party list, not for an individual candidate. When the votes are counted, representatives are selected for the deliberative body from the party lists in proportion to the percentage of the vote each party received at the ballot box. (watch this video from CGP Grey's blog for a much clearer and more entertaining description).
A proportional system in the US would overhaul how we elect presidents and members of the House of Representatives. Members of the Electoral College would be apportioned state-by-state— so if the Green Party won 10% of the presidential vote in a 10-elector state like Wisconsin, one of the electors sent to the college would be committed to vote for the Green Party’s presidential nominee. A proportional system wouldn’t work well in states with only three electoral votes, as minority parties would have to achieve 33% or higher to be apportioned a single elector. So we could increase the total number of electors in the college tenfold, allowing minority parties to impact the apportionment of electors in small states.
Congressman could be apportioned nationally, eliminating Congressional districts, which in their current gerrymandered state don’t hold much significance anyway. All parties could still hold primaries to determine which candidates make it onto the party lists, and at what rank. Those primaries could be held locally, to ensure that all regions are still represented. But in choosing which candidates actually get seats in Congress, geography would be irrelevant.
The idea of eliminating Congressional districts will sound crazy to most Americans, but we should pay attention to how our first-past-the-post system limits voter choice. For example, if you are extremely liberal, you may feel that the Socialist Party reflects your values better than any other, but you know that only a Democrat or a Republican has any chance of winning a plurality of votes in your district. You want your vote to impact the election, and you know that if you don’t vote for the Democrat, it increases the likelihood that the Republican (who you really hate) will win. Because of this calculation, many extreme voters end up casting ballots for Democrats or Republicans only because they are the "lesser of two evils."
The percentage of Americans who are hungry for a third party is at 60%, an all-time high. Many voters wish they could vote for someone more liberal than the Democrats or conservative than the Republicans; many others wish they could vote for someone who wasn’t beholden to either camp. A proportional system would give all voters the choices they want. Everyone who ever wanted to vote Socialist could do so without worrying that they were empowering the Republicans. With each voter’s voting decision changed in this way, all fringe parties — the Green Party, the Constitution Party, the Libertarian Party, and many others — would get a lot more votes than they do today.
With more public support, fringe parties could draw extreme politicians away from Democrats and Republicans. Many liberals and conservatives would prefer to leave the mainstream parties if they thought they could win elections without them. Liberals who think any deal to reduce the debt that includes spending cuts is a giveaway to corporate interests could leave the Democratic Party and win seats in Congress as Greens or Socialists; the conservatives who would rather shut down the government than continue funding Obamacare could break off from Republicans and win elections as members of the Constitution Party. Ideological voters of the far left and right could have their platforms of purity.
Without the extreme elements that shoot down compromise, the two mainstream parties could reform into broad organizations that agree on general principles without having to agree on exactly how those principles are applied to every issue — like they used to be for most of the last hundred years. Politicians who favor progress over perfection would finally have a home in 21st century politics.
A Congress comprising two centrist parties and several others representing the most ideological voters would be more able to compromise, and therefore legislate. Without liberal activists to answer to, Democrats could occasionally vote for Medicare cuts; without the Tea Party, Republicans could occasionally vote for tax increases. This kind of Congress would also have the potential for interesting new coalitions. Democrats and Libertarians could agree to reduce mandatory-minimum penalties in drug sentencing; Republicans and Libertarians could fight to reduce taxes. The elusive “grand bargain” of debt reduction, including both spending cuts and tax increases, would have become law by now in a proportional system.
With so many representatives and voters associated with fringe parties, it would still be difficult for compromisers to cobble together a legislative majority. But the newly moderate Democratic and Republican parties would draw support from the large mass of American voters that actually agree on what needs to be done about the deficit, immigration reform, and other issues. Today, many of these voters, who care about America’s problems but aren’t as sure what the solutions are as liberal and conservative activists, are starting to reject politics entirely. Millennials especially have only ever seen acrimony and gridlock in Washington; with each failed compromise, they are less likely to vote and seek careers in public service.
A proportional system would give every kind of voter the hope of authentic representation. In doing so, it would empower voters and politicians who support compromise — the essence of a democratic system.
Extreme voices have an important place in a democracy. They push the boundaries of debate and introduce ideas that compromisers would never have thought of. But they shouldn’t be empowered to hold governance hostage pending the total adoption of their ideological vision.
You may have noticed that I haven’t said anything about the Senate. That’s because, other than eliminating the filibuster (which doesn’t require a Constitutional amendment), I think the Senate could remain unchanged. The “upper chamber" was created, explicitly, to give small jurisdictions a forum where they have as much power as large ones, which works directly against the principles underlying proportional representation. It’s likely that the Senate would remain, by-and-large, made up of only Democrats and Republicans.
I’m ok with that for two reasons: 1) Senators are, by virtue of representing entire states over six year terms, more accommodating and flexible than members of the House. It was the Senate that passed a bipartisan immigration reform bill in 2013 (just like they did back in 2006). 2) Even if the Senate were still comprised only of Democrats and Republicans, the ability to elect presidents and House members will still allow minor parties to attract national followings, build organizations, and have a hand in governing. This, in turn, would lead to the possibility that one of the erstwhile minor parties could contemplate winning a plurality in Senate race.
I recognize that the amendments required to enact proportional representation would reshape the Constitution more fundamentally than most voters would be comfortable with. Selecting someone to represent your area’s unique perspective is central to most Americans' understanding of democracy. But so much has changed in politics in the last few decades: regional issues matter less than they ever have; it has become impossible for a politician speak without placing herself on one side of the national Red/Blue culture war; and changes in our lifestyles and in the media culture allow people to insulate themselves from different opinions. Voters could still have their local communities be represented in state government, which is the natural venue for discussion of local issues, anyway.
In Federalist #10, James Madison wrote that “among the numerous advantages promised by a well-constructed Union, none deserves to be more accurately developed than its tendency to break and control the violence of faction.” Two hundred and some years later, the violence of our factions are choking off our essential democratic functions. To ensure healthy democracy for the next two hundred, we should be open to radical changes in how we practice it.