Did you vote this midterm election cycle? Odds are your vote didn’t really matter. Why? Because of an antiquated election system dubbed “first past the post” (FPP). At face value, this system seems fair and logical, but it is deeply flawed. There are better alternatives with the potential to solve many current political crises.
Over several election cycles, the FPP system encourages two-party politics and heavily incentivizes gerrymandering. Under FPP, the winner with the largest percentage of votes represents the district, even if they hold a slim majority. Political parties will ignore districts where this majority is clearly safe. In the end, citizens become disenfranchised. Voters will choose the lesser of two evils and compromise most of their principles to preserve a few they hold dear.
One solution is to implement mixed-member proportional (MMP) representation. Instead of just casting a vote for their district’s representative, each voter also indicates their preferred political party. The composition of the representative body is meant to mirror the preferences of the population, with half of the seats assigned according to the winner of each district per the first vote, and the rest assigned to match the total partisan percentage breakdown.
So let’s apply this to the 2012 elections and the United States House of Representatives. To apply MMP, the size of the House must be doubled to 870 members. The first 435 are assigned according to the district winners, 234 to Republicans and 201 to Democrats. After that, 435 MMP pool representatives would be assigned, based on national or state percentage breakdowns.
What are the advantages here? Each district maintains the autonomy to select a representative from their geographic location. Gone is the incentive to gerrymander since the final composition will match the state at large. Fringe political parties can gain steam and pick up seats in the representative body even if they don’t hold a majority in any one district. Encouraging political diversity should inspire apathetic citizens to become civically engaged because the barrier to entry is lower.
MMP is not a perfect system. Who, for example, decides the order of the names on each party’s prospective MPP pool seats? An ordered list encourages office politics within a political party, but does not undermine the integrity of the directly elected representative.
Though the MMP system is different from our traditional, constitutionally mandated system, its success and use in other countries is noteworthy. MMP was first implemented by the German Bundestag, or parliament, after its establishment in 1949. Since then, legislative bodies across the world have adopted this system. Many Americans take pride in the fixed character of the Constitution. It’s easy to forget that the old way isn’t necessarily the best way. The willingness of other countries to reform demonstrates that we, too, can reconsider our voting system.
MMP offers an innovative method of electing representatives that empowers the electorate. It lets them embrace or create new political parties without the fear of squandering their vote. Given Congress’ partisan gridlock, empowerment of third parties could be the change needed to shift the balance of power to benefit the American people.